User talk:Biomassbob/Archive/2013Jan-Mar

< User talk:Biomassbob‎ | Archive
Revision as of 16:58, 11 February 2014 by Mhhutchins (talk | contribs) (Archiving messages from January-March 2013)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Another merged-away parent

I had to reject another submission, which wanted to make this a variant of something that no longer exists, probably merged away. Please resubmit. I encourage you to do either variants or merges, wait for the acceptance, then do the other.... --MartyD 11:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Marty. I do resist the temptation most of the time, but occasionally I succumb and somehow always do it wrong. Bob 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Leiber - Jeff Frane

" is one of the print-on-demand copies that you can theoretically still order through Alan Bard Newcomer in Eugene. It was probably produced early-on at the request of library or collector. There's no separate ISBN listed for it and it's not listed in the Library of Congress or on the copyright page of the trade paperback (as the other hardcovers were when they were issued by the press at the same as the trade paperbacks). I don't know what the official policy is here but I would suggest removing the ISBN and going with a $14.95 cover price which was the last price listed for the hardcovers."

This is what I've suggested to Mhhutchins. Got any other suggestions?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talkcontribs) .

Whoever you are, I assume you know a lot more about these Starmont House books than I do. However, I see no reason to assume the book I have was originally purchased as a hardcover. I have a number of hardcover books that were clearly published as paperbacks and rebound by their first owners. I think this is a likely scenario for the origin of my Fritz Leiber book. In any case, it seems to me that the obvious solutions are to either remove the book from the data base or to add a note saying that this may be a unique item (produced from the trade paperback version), explain why you feel this is so, and leave the price and ISBN blank. Bob 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you can use the "history" tab at the top of the page to see a history of the edits. --MartyD 12:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty. I went back and added to the notes for the pub, indicating that this is probably a rebound TPB. If one of you moderators wants to pull the pub from the data base, I'll have no objection. Bob 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Title series and variant titles

Hi Bob. Here's another gotcha for you to be aware of: When dealing with title series, we do not want variants to be placed in the series, only the parent/canonical title. All of the variants will automatically show up as belonging to the series, and if you place them in the series, they'll appear twice.

If you have a title that's in a series and you make it a variant, the "right" thing should happen: The series info will get removed from the variant and will be added to the parent if it's not there. But if you edit a variant after the fact, nothing stops you from incorrectly putting it into a series, so it's up to you and the moderator(s) to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm mentioning it because there's a half dozen or so Howard letters that ended up in this state; I will fix them. Yet another thing to keep in mind. :-) Thanks, --MartyD 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Marty!! With the Howard letters, it's difficult to find all the variants, and moving the bulk of the letters into the series helps / helped find a lot of them. As I continue to do the variants, I'll try to remember to remove the series I.D. as I go from now on. These obscure software "glitches" sure add up! Bob 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I see it made for a lot more editing, but thanks for taking care of them. --MartyD 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I fixed up all of the ones where both the variant and the parent were in the same series, removing the series from the variants. I discovered in working with your submissions that if you have two titles in the same series and then make one a variant of the other, the series information remains on both. --MartyD 03:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
More editing, but kind of necessary to help find the variants. I also have to keep going back to the pubs to make sure of duplicates when the dates differ or I've mistyped the wording. I hope I can get everything cleaned up this week. Bob 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"wzs" typo?

Is "wzs" in this by any chance a typo? --MartyD 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one: really just "t" in this? --MartyD 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Another one: "fromBradford" with no space in this? --MartyD 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty. All fixed. Bob 11:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge that should be variant?

I have on hold your proposed merge of Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. August 1930... with Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [August 9, 1930...]. The titles are different, and I'm wondering if you meant to make one a variant of the other instead of merging? --MartyD 03:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll pull the submission and redo as a variant. Bob 11:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more typos and other questions

In this, is "course" correct, or should it be "coarse"? Also, is "rudealetter" correct? --MartyD 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In this, another "wzs"? --MartyD 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For a variant I have on hold, just as a placeholder, I see "mid-1931" in this and "mid-1932" in this. I'm wondering if one of those years is a typo and should be the other? Or might they be two different letters if the years are different? --MartyD 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that this variant's quote has no "the" before the newspaper title, while this parent's quote ends in "the". I'm wondering if "the" might be missing from the first one. --MartyD 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mostly good catches, Marty. "Coarse" is correct for the first, and "rude letter" is right. "Wzs" is correct for both the second cases; I was wrong to change the first one! "1931" is right for both in the third item; dates are not always consistent for the letters because many are estimated -- Howard did not date most of the letters he sent except for business letters. Dates for the letters to HPL are from the recipient hand-writing the date on the letter himself, for example. "The" should be in both of the fourth items. All corrected. There are a fair number of similar typos; I think I catch more than I miss, but I'm glad you're catching the misses! Thanks. Bob 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dates: Publication's statement wins

I accepted your update to The Wit and Wisdom of Jack Vance, but.... If the pub states a publication date -- as you indicate in the notes -- you should use that as the publication's date. Amazon could well have the originally announced date, which then wasn't met. We'd only want to use the date from Amazon if the publication didn't provide one. If you want to mention in the notes that Amazon has a different date, you could put its date there. --MartyD 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. I thought that maybe the book came out a little sooner than expected, and Amazon used the actual date. I'll fix the pub. Bob 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bring Me the Head of Prince Charming - Zelazny & Sheckly

Added panoramic cover scan to SFJuggler 06:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! Bob 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Friday night typos & questions

Here's tonight's set of questions and possible typos....

February 1931 is correct for all except "Dear HPL". I corrected the date, removed the letter from the content of "Dear HPL" and added the letter back to that pub. Once approved, I'll variant the letter back in. Incidently, it's obvious that the 1931 date is correct from content, and in "Dear HPL" the letter appears in the correct order, even though the date is incorrect. Dates on the letters in "Dear HPL" are mostly hand-written in by HPL, including on this one.
  • "your" parody in this vs. "our" parody in this
  • Lowercase "zowie" in this vs. capitalized "Zowie" in this
  • Capitalized "Ho!" in this vs. lowercase "ho!" in this
  • Clyde + space + lowercase "sahib" in this vs. glommed "ClydeSahib" in this
  • "burning" in this vs. "buning" (no "r") in this

Just establishing that I did actually look at the submissions. :-) --MartyD 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"your" is correct for the second item, lower case for the third and fourth and burning in the last. I know I corrected both the second and last ones before, but apparently only for some of the cases. Thanks for the catches. Bob 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Midsummer Tempest - Anderson

Added gutter code to 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales by Walter Shedlofsky

Could you take a look at Shedlofsky's poem "Weird Tales"in Weirdbook Two. He's got a poem with that title in The Weird Tales Collector, #5 and I'm trying to determine if they should be merged or not. The WTC poem begins "The Most Fantastic Magazine, Who Recalls of knows it once existed?—". If the WB copy is different, we should add the first line to the notes in both instances so that they won't get merged, or if they are the same we should merge them. Thanks for looking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The first line is "Who recalls or knows it once existed?--" (double dashes, not an emdash, although that may be an artifact of the magazine publisher). It has two five-line verses. Perhaps they are variants? Bob 00:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
That certainly sounds like the same poem. With the exception of "The Most Fantastic Magazine", the first letter of each line taken together spells out "Weird Tales". The addition of one line isn't really enough to make it a variant in my opinion. Unless the 10 other lines are different, I'll go ahead and merge the titles. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like the same poem. Merging is fine with me. Bob 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Letter POEM -> ESSAY fix

I changed the type of this letter from POEM to ESSAY. --MartyD 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, this one. --MartyD 13:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty. Glad these letters are about done! Bob 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

& vs. "and"

I accepted your clone Robert E. Howard, Oriental Stories, The Magic Carpet & The Souk, but... You made this one use "&", while the existing title and other publication record use "and" (although I see that one has "&" on the cover you uploaded; but we don't go by the cover, of course). If one uses "and" and the other uses "&", these should be made into separate titles (you can unmerge the "&" one) and made into variants. Even though the symbol and word mean the same thing, we treat them as wording variations. And if they both use "&" or both use "and", the errant item(s) should be fixed up. Thanks. --MartyD 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that. You may have noticed other differences in the titles: the first uses "Robert E. Howard in..." and the second "Robert E. Howard,..." and the first uses "Magic Carpet" and the second "The Magic Carpet". The covers are the same, but the title pages have these differences. Bob 15:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunday morning typo

Just one minor discrepancy this morning! "w"est in this vs. "W"est in this. --MartyD 13:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The capital is correct. Fixed. Bob 15:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Country

The Black Country interior art by Greg Ruth is dated 1937 in your verified REH: Two-Gun Raconteur #8, Fall 2005. However, the story it accompanies is dated 1973 and the artist was born in 1970. Could you please double check the date of this interior art? -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really don't know how that happened because the artwork is original to the Fall 2005 issue of REH:TGR. The story was written in the 1930s, but not published until 1973, so there is no excuse for the 1937 date. Bob 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Introduction Typos

The following titles are in your verified publications and I believe to be typos for "Introduction".

Can you please double check these and either correct or, if typos in the actual publication, add notes? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; all fixed. Am I consistent or what? Actually I have caught many more of these mistakes in "introduction"; it seems to be a word I can't type correctly the first time for some reason. Bob 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Another 1931 vs. 1932

This says "ca. January 1932", while this says "ca. February 1931". I believe the latter is one you previously corrected from 1932 to 1931. I'm wondering if the other one might have a typo in the year. --MartyD 00:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have not been as clear as I thought the first time this pub came up. The differences are real, and I had hoped the notes had made that clear. The date if "Dear HPL" is just wrong. It is written in by HPL, and he must have done it some time after the letter was received. In any event, the 1932 is clear on that version of the letter. The content makes it clear that it was 1931, I assume late January or early February. That date is used in all the other versions of the letter. So no typo this time. Bob 03:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note on wrong title?

I have on hold your submission that would add "This is a single-issue fanzine published by Howard." as a note to the essay The Golden Caliph. An essay isn't a fanzine, so something's not right. I'm guessing you meant that note for another record? --MartyD 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This item is indeed a fanzine by Howard that appears in Glenn Lord's book. It never occurred to me to label it a fanzine. I did list all of the items in the fanzine as appearing in the Lord book, with the original appearance in the fanzine. The problem I have is that "FANZINE" is not a permitted label for content to a "NONFICTION". Can you suggest what change to make? It seems to me that this sort of problem came up for me once before; maybe I can chase it down. Bob 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloodwork by Kim Harrison

In your submission for the above stated publication that I put on hold you wrote in the notes: 'Month and day of publication from' but put the date as to unknown (0000-00-00). Seems like a contradiction to me (or has amazon also no date)? Stonecreek 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The date is on Amazon, July 12, 2011, not clear on how it got omitted. You can fix it, or I can if you accept the submission as it is. Bob 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fixed. Stonecreek 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Four Edits on Hold

I have placed four of your edits on hold:

  • By This Axe I Rule! & Untitled Story ("The sun was setting..."): The change for each is to add a "First published in ..." statement to a variant. However, that information is already inherently present via the parent's publication record. Adding such a note would not be a standard ISFDB practice. Is there something special you were trying to achieve?
  • Black Colossus: You are converting this from a shortstory to a novelette. However, this work is in publications that have been verified by many different editors. You need to notify editors when making changes that impact their verifications. In a case like this, you should make a central post and point the editors to that central discussion via their talk pages.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shuffling between variants, I thought it would be useful to add the information. However, I'll just cancel the submissions if there is an objection; there was nothing special about these two. As for "Black Colossus", there are 25 verified pubs with this story, of which I verified 17. The first verification was by Unapersson who was two years earlier than anyone else, but is no longer active. I believe the others just followed along as I did until now. The story is clearly too long for a short story. Unfortunately, even though I've done it before, I've forgotten how to make a central post. I'd be happy to do this if you would remind me how to. Bob 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
To make a centralized discussion, you post the discussion at one place (one the verifiers talk pages for example) and then leave notes at the other notifiers talk pages asking them to participate in the discussion with a link to the discussion. See User talk:Hauck#Solaris Rising: The New Solaris Book of Science Fiction and User talk:MLB#Solaris Rising: The New Solaris Book of Science Fiction for an example. Since it is already posted here, you could simply ask the other verifiers to comment on the size change here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Colossus:

I.m.o. it should be a novelette. I must have missed this on my verification. --Willem H. 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Novelette it is. --Chris J 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Submission approved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor record merge

I have on hold your proposed merge of all of the Howard Review editor records. This isn't appropriate, as the issues occur across multiple years; we only merge by year. You should cancel this and submit year-based merges instead. See Help:How_to_link_a_magazine_to_its_wiki_page_and_add_it_to_a_magazine_series. Thanks. --MartyD 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "appropriate" to merge by year, either, or at least not useful in this case (as with many fanzines). I'll cancel the submission. Bob 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right: we shouldn't need to merge editor records at all, it was only started to keep some prolific editor's pages a bit shorter. Imagine John Campbell's page if we didn't have that. I think we've gone too far and now over-merge - it's ridiculous to merge bi-annual fanzines by year, or merge a short-lived fanzine or magazine that only had three or four issues. We should be able to code around it now, but I hesitate to think how much work it would be to undo all our years of bad practice. For every simple case we could fix with a simple unmerge (once we've fixed the display issue) there's a couple of complicated ones like Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine, with its issue by issue rotating editors that might actually be pseudonyms. In the meantime, while we're short on coders and testers, you might want to bring this up on Rules and Standards to at least slow down the sillier practices. BLongley 04:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Friday night submission comments/questions

Tonight's questions/comments:

  • I have that big pile of new pubs on hold because the general format of "Series / Title" isn't the way we do things. I'm soliciting opinions on how best to handle the titling. Do you care if I change them to whatever is agreed upon, or would you rather I told you what the thinking is and have you go and do it?
The suggestion is that for titling purposes we ignore both the "The Works of Robert E. Howard" series info -- which can be used as a pub series -- and the "The Kull Series" (etc.) and go with just the titles of the contained work(s) as the title, then putting these into the appropriate title series, along with the contained works (if they're not already there). So I would accept the submissions and remove the leading "SERIES /" from the titles, then put the new title into the series afterward. How does that sound? --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It's the solution I came up with as well, but I still find it less attractive than the original submission. The inclusion of "The Kull Series" in the title makes it readily apparent in looking at the author's list of publications that these pubs are related. However, I understand that some change is required, so let's go with your suggestion. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If you wanted to treat the series information as part of the title, you'd need to do: "The Kull Series: Xxx". But it gets a little strange when multiple works are involved in the single publication: "The Kull Series: Aaa / Bbb / Ccc / Ddd". That said, it's ok to have the publication's title text be different from the title record's text, so the publications could always be changed later to that Title: Sub-Title format. I will accept these submissions and do the series name removal (also on the ones Christian mentions below that he accepted). I will leave the merging and varianting to you. Once that's done, we'll need to review for proper series placement (do the series work last, so we don't end up with variants in the series). --MartyD 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I accepted your submission that made Roarke a synyonym of Roark, where your comment said all of the Roarke misspellings occurred in The Howard Review #3. Does that mean the above was mis-transcribed, is really "Roark" in The Howard Review #5, and I should accept the merge? --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No mis-transcription, the spelling "Roarke" is used in THR #5. Variant, not merge. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have rejected this one, and I made the "e" one a variant of the non-"e" one instead. --MartyD 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Something happened to this submission, and perhaps a different merge was done. Anyway, "Michael J. Kellar" no longer exists as a credit anywhere, and I was forced to reject your proposed pseudonym of that to "Michael Kellar" because the pseudonym is no longer present. I have a feeling a proper "J." credit got lost somewhere. --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered about that. I pulled the submission, but thought that adding the pseudonym might be a good idea because that is the man's name. No problem with the rejection. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not doubting, just double-checking in case. Thanks. --MartyD 04:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I accepted sub.s for The Solomon Kane Series in the same vein shortly beforehand. These will have to be corrected also (I realized it too late): I'll do the correction if you two agree on a general format. Stonecreek 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Collossus

Both Contento for Conan then Freebooter and Miller/Contento for the original magazine appearance classify it as a novelette. I'd say we should go with that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok for me. Hauck 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree.~Rhschu

Paradox' The Sword Woman / Red Blades of Black Cathay and Smith

To answer your implied question in the moderator note on the submission of The Sword Woman / Red Blades of Black Cathay, no, if Smith isn't credited on the publication or the story, you should record them without him (I fixed). But then what you can do is make variants to the same publication and story titles, crediting Smith along with Howard. Then they'll display with both credited, but show up as "only as by Robert E. Howard". --MartyD 12:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty. Bob 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


I made variants for all things Byron Roarke to things Byron Roark, fyi. --MartyD 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bob: I went back and looked at the Collection Conan the Freebooter and correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a short story was roughly less than 20 pages and a novelette was roughly 20-50 pages. I never really thought about it before but there isn't a story in there that isn't 30 some pages or more. Black Colossus is 45 pages. I guess that I wasn't aware that it was classed as a Short Story. How can it not be a novelette by ISFDB's own definition? ~Rhschu

Don't feel bad; I entered collections with that story 17 times and missed it every time. Now it's fixed. Bob 14:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1977 edition of The Pride of Bear Creek

I'm correcting an error of the page number for "Pilgrims to the Pecos" (it was listed on page 439) and am adding a note about the copy count for the 1977 Grant edition of Howard's The Pride of Bear Creek. I'm also going to upload a new scan of the cover. It looks like the current scan is cropped to far in on the right. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for catching my typo. I made three changes to this pub. First, I uploaded a new cover illustration that includes the spine of the book, since the artwork includes the spine. Second, I changed the title type for "A Ringtailed Tornado" from SF to SS. Third, I changed the page numbers of all the stories to 2 pages earlier. While the text of the stories starts on the pages indicated, there is a title page for each story. I don't know if it's standard practice, but it seems to me that these title pages are part of the story. If this is a mistake, feel free to reject my submission. Finally a comment about the copy count. I've collected information on Howard pubs for a number of years, but unfortunately I never recorded sources for the information as I went along. I have the number of copies of this pub as 1600, rather than 1800. I'm not familiar with the source you cite, so have no idea of its reliability or where they get their information; I don't feel competent to judge which is right, 1600 or 1800 copies. Since you can cite your source, I have no objection to the way you've phrased your input to the notes. I'm going to ask a couple of people to see if I can get a conformation, though. Bob 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't have included the spine, but that is a personal preference of mine and we don't really have a policy. I always do front cover only for my scans. I won't quibble though and I'll delete my earlier scan.
I also don't know whether we have an explicit definition of what is the story title page when there is a page with just the title and the title also appears on the first page of the story. I generally go with however it is reflected in the table of contents in these cases, which for this book would have been the pages on which the actual story begins. I'll post an item in Rules and standards discussions to see if we can come up with a standard.
Chalker/Owings is The Science-Fantasy Publishers: A Bibliographic History 1923-1998. Since it is listed in our Sources of Bibliographic Information I refer to it by the author names. I would expect that the source of the copy count was from Grant. I just now looked this up in Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's Over My Shoulder which puts the count at 1550 and I've added that note to that effect. Chalker/Owings does have occasional errors and when references disagree, I just document all the sources. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Ron, I'm impressed with your resources! About the cover artwork: I really like to have the entire artwork copied where it is possible. Usually, that's just the front cover, but sometimes it includes the spine and sometimes spine and back cover. I used to have a small scanner, but I bought a larger one that lets me scan most dust jackets. I also include the spine when the front cover is blank, as is true with some hardbacks without jackets, like the Heinlein Virginia Edition or Vance Integral Edition books. About the internal title pages: the reasons I like to use them as the first page of the story in collections are that it seems consistent with (1)numbering the first page of stories or articles with a first-page illustration as the illustration page rather than the text itself and (2)many novels designate the title page as page 1. Maybe a bit quirky. Finally, I suspect that the source of my number of 1600 copies was a fanzine like Whispers at the time of publication; a variety of fanzines that dealt with Howard material included such information in their news columns. As with Chalker/Owens, not always accurate. Bob 18:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More Unborn merge question

Hi Bob. One question from above still unanswered, for a submission I have on hold:

Sorry, I should probably do separate topics for each question to avoid having things get lost. Anyway, let me know about this one. Thanks. --MartyD 11:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed answering that one. Yeah. McHaney is credited only in the TOC in "The Book", not in the article, so I decided that his name should be removed. Bob 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I accepted it. --MartyD 03:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter pub title / content title mismatch

While looking at one of your submissions, I notice we have The Howard Review Newsletter, #5 April 1976, but its contents use a mix of "The Howard Review Newsletter #5" (matching), "The Howard Newsletter #5" (no "Review"), and "The Howard Review #5" (no "Newsletter"). It also looks like the two INTERIORARTs that are covers from elsewhere could use varianting and then having the parentheticals removed, as you've done elsewhere. --MartyD 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty. This one is messed up. I'll fix it. Bob 01:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Howard Review Newsletter, Spring 1998

I accepted your submission of The Howard Review Newsletter, V2n1 Spring 1998, but the "V2n1" caught my eye. I know it has been discussed before that we don't put the volume numbering in the titles unless necessary. Here, the style is also inconsistent with other newsletters you've recorded, where their titles have the whole number and the date. If the newsletter displays the whole number on the cover or title page, I would go with that. Any change would then unfortunately also mean the content titles should be fixed up. --MartyD 11:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice the date. This issue came out twenty years after the previous one, and was meant to be a new fanzine for McHaney (but there was never a second issue). Apparently, he did what Scithers did with Amra: went to volume 2 to differentiate the new 'zine from the old one. The earlier ones were simple newsletters and ads. The new one(V2n1)has far more content, essays and stories. I do not think this one should be included under the same series as the other "Newsletters". There is no "whole number" assigned. So the V2 is important. Bob 01:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving older comments

While contributing to the problem, I noticed your talk page is getting very long. You should consider archiving older entries. It's quick and easy to do, and I see Michael already set up a skeleton structure for you. If you click on the link at the top of this page, you'll go to User_talk:Biomassbob/Archive, and there he has set up some date-based sub-pages for you. To archive, you'll want to use two browser windows or tabs. In one, edit this whole page (use the "edit" link at the top). Start with "== C[harlene] James ==" and select everything dated April - June, 2012. Then CUT (or CTRL-X). In the other, go to the Archive link and click on the link for 2012Apr-Jun. Click in the edit box there and PASTE (or CTRL-V). Save that second one, and, if it looks ok, then go save your main page. Repeat for the other date ranges. And don't worry, a change can be rolled back, so you can recover if something doesn't go right.

Give it a try. I'm happy to do it for you if you run into trouble or can't get it to work. --MartyD 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

O.K., I saved two quarters and will do the fourth quarter next month. Your explanation of how to do this was much clearer than any I had previously. Thanks! Bob 02:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate Marvel Tales

I think your proposed Marvel Tales #2 submission, which I have on hold, duplicates this existing entry. I think you'll need to cancel and edit that one instead. Let me know if you disagree. --MartyD 11:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't look. Fixed it. Bob 16:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

American Fantasy, February 1982

There is a record for this issue in the database. Mhhutchins 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I notice you don't credit Paul Gagne's photos or the book cover illustrations throughout the Straub interview. Is there a reason for this? I cancelled my submission. Bob 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't consider reproductions of book covers to be illustrative of the piece (they illustrate the books, not the interview). It would overwhelm the summary pages of cover artists to include book covers included in magazines which review the books. And of very little value. Feel free to start a Rules discussion if you think differently. As for the photos, it's never been an ISFDB requirement to create content records for photographs. I think the practice of creating a content record for every minutiae of a periodical adds so many trees that they obscure the forest. Mhhutchins 04:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Conan's World and Robert E. Howard

I accepted this publication. However, there already was another publication with the same ISBN and date. The only difference I can see is the price. Are you sure these are different publications or just an error in the original publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn, I looked for this pub and just didn't find it for some reason. It is the same book. My copy has a glued-on label over the original price showing the higher value. I don't know if the original seller raised the price at some point or if a reseller did. I'll delete my submission and edit the older one. Thank you for finding this. Bob 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Fantastic Worlds of Robert E. Howard

Hey Bob, how is your proposed $17.95 June 1997 tp of The Fantastic Worlds of Robert E. Howard different from this entry? Sorry if I'm being dense. Thanks. --MartyD 14:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found the later submission and managed to figure it out. --MartyD 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Both printed in the same month? Mhhutchins 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael, you obviously didn't figure it out! A note to the moderator explained: I used the date of the first printing so that the dates on the articles would be correct. This morning I went back and corrected the date of the second printing, as planned. I also copied the content of the second printing back to the first. Maybe this was clumsy, but I have the second printing, not the first. Bob 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a less "clumsy" way, and an inquiry on the Help Desk would have revealed it. But it doesn't matter now, because the record has been corrected. Mhhutchins 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately the note to the moderator doesn't stay around to help other moderators, so only the one handling the submission knows what's going on (phrase used loosely -- I make no claim about knowing what's going on in general...). I'll have to ask Ahasuerus if we could keep the note-to-the-moderator in the submission history. Seems like that would be a useful thing. --MartyD 12:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notes of Various..."

I've corrected the name of "Notes on Various People of the Hyborian Age" by Falconer in this publication. The title was listed as "Notes of Various..." and after verifying it was incorrect in the third printing, I merged the title correcting all of them and per this discussion. Please let me know if your copy has the title incorrectly and I'll undo the change making yours a variant. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! Thanks, Ron. Bob 03:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Page numbering in The Complete Marvel Tales

I accepted your submissions for The Complete Marvel Tales, but I'm going to solicit opinions about how best to handle the page numbering. I'm sure we've run across something like this before, and I just haven't seen it. --MartyD 12:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Marty, I've done this before myself, most recently with Science-Fantasy Correspondent. I'm sure I've seen the technique used in other places, too, but can't recall specifics. I'll keep on adding the other pieces of Complete Marvel Tales; we can fix the whole thing all at once if necessary. Bob 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to my expectations, there's no de facto standard way to handle it. And no one objected to your approach, so no need to change anything. --MartyD 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

One Who Walked Alone

Sorry, but your submissions for cloning had to be rejected (per regularities of ISFDB). We don't add arbitrary dates into the date of publication field. If we don't know the date, per logic the date is to filled as unknown. Stonecreek 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I've seen it done before, but only once or twice. Resubmitted. Bob 18:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Letter rejects

Sorry, that I had to reject some of your submissions to put various letters into various series. It is not a good idea to to this as as series of letters send TO somebody (because everybody and the second guy would have also sent letters to E. Hoffman Price, for example - so every letter sent to him would at last end up in the same series). That's why it is only meaningful (and bibliographic usus) to have letter series as BY somebody. Stonecreek 11:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

An afterthought: An idea for serializing letters that may be suited to your intentions could be: Correspondence between Author1 and Author2, or something like that. Stonecreek 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
An afterafterthought: On realizing the afterthought I am sorry to have rejected your sub.s: they could have been made to change quite easily after accepting. But for what it's good I have started a discussion here. Stonecreek 14:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I began putting Howard letters in series to make it possible for me to merge/variant them. It was virtually impossible for me to do this without doing some sort of organization. This latest batch was just an attempt to pull the letters out of the general category of ESSAY so that the real essays were no long hopelessly lost in the wash of letters. I can see why it would be a good idea to put the author's name in the series title. I like Longley's suggestion of a general letters series for the author, with sub-series for major recipients. If you moderators come to some agreement, I'll implement it for Howard's letters. Bob 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible duplicate record

Please determine if one of these records should be deleted: your recently added record or the one already in the database. They are similar (same publisher, ISBN, and year) but there are a few slight differences (tp/pb, page count and $). Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The LCCN you cite in your record gives the height as 22cm and the page count as xiii+119+[4] leaves of plates. (We would count both sides of a plate if there are contents on each side.) Mhhutchins 21:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a duplicate. I edited the original and deleted the new one. The height and page count are correct, [7] pages, since the back of the fourth sheet is blank. The 127 I used (the same as reported in included the blank page between the last numbered page and the title sheet for the maps. My records show the original price as $2.95, but I don't have the source -- it was likely a fanzine -- so I'll let the $5.95 stand. Bob 23:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Neverending Hunt modification submission problem

Something went wrong with your proposed update to The Neverending Hunt, which, among other things, wanted to add this cover image. The moderator interface says the edit submission record is "invalid", and the only option it provides is a hard reject -- I can't even place it on hold. I don't know why this happened -- dump of the submission doesn't show me anything that looks wrong, but maybe it's not showing me everything in the submission. Please take a look and try again. Thanks. --MartyD 13:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I also had to hard-reject your proposed cloning of something with the above title, as whatever you cloned is no longer in the database. Maybe that's what's behind the above failure, too. Something definitely messed up.... --MartyD 13:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll try again. That is the correct image for that pub. Bob 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Red Sonja screenplay serialization in The Barbarian Scroll

Sorry, I may have been the one to miss this in the first couple of submissions, but better late than never. For the Red Sonja serializations in The Barbarian Scroll, the way to record those and get disambiguation is to append "(Part n of m)", not the title of the publication. If you're at a point where you don't know how many installments there are (or will be), you should use a "?" -- for example, "(Part 4 of ?)".

You then variant these all to one entry representing the full work.

Each time I go look for something in the Help, I realize what a jumble it is. This scheme isn't described under "Title", but rather in the SERIAL (very last) bullet of Help:Screen:EditPub#EntryType. More extensive help is at Help:Use_of_the_SERIAL_type.

I would have gone and changed them for you, but I didn't know whether the number of installments is known, plus there are some discrepancies in some of your notes. These are the ones:

  • in Barbarian Scroll #7 -- The "Master Scene Script" subtitle is uniquely used here. Given the subsequent issues, I suspect this should be SERIAL instead of SHORTFICTION and is actually the first installment?
  • in Barbarian Scroll #8 -- Doesn't say which episode; notes in pub simply say it's a screenplay.
  • in Barbarian Scroll #9 -- Notes in pub say it's the fourth episode, but...
  • in Barbarian Scroll #10 -- Notes in pub also say it's the fourth episode. This one is mis-typed as SHORTFICTION instead of SERIAL.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --MartyD 12:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll fix them. Unfortunately, the screenplay is never finished, but continued in #16, the last issue of the fanzine. So I guess a "?" will have to do. Of course, the title in the pub does not say "Part x of y", so I thought putting that in would be wrong. Now I know. And yes, I was confused to call part 3 as part 4, which I realized when I put in part 4. Bob 14:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mis-variant of Frazetta interiorart

I have on hold your submission that proposes to make The Robert E. Howard Newsletter, V2n1 (Cover illustration of "Thongor in the City of Magicians") INTERIORART a variant of an identical new INTERIORART record. I'm guessing you were trying to make it a variant of Cover: Thongor in the City of Magicians and perhaps pushed the wrong submit button in the Make Variant form? If that's not it, I don't see what the difference is that warrants a variant. Thanks. --MartyD 12:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a suspicion that I got this wrong, but not how. I'll pull the submission and take care of it. Bob 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Author names

I have a few submissions related to "Thomas W. Collins, Sr." on hold. As per Help:

"Name suffixes should be separated from the last name by a comma. For instance:

  • Alfred Coppel, Jr.
  • Edward J. McFadden, III
  • Miles J. Breuer, M.D."

Could you please change all records which currently use "Thomas W. Collins Sr." to "Thomas W. Collins, Sr."? We can then establish variant and pseudonym relationships as needed. TIA!

Also, as the same Help page says, "The format of the legal name should be "Lastname, Firstname Middlenames", with all names being given in full. The reason for this format are names like "Patrick Nielsen Hayden" where you can't readily tell whether the last name is "Hayden" or "Nielsen Hayden." I have adjusted Alfonso D. J. Alfonso's legal name accordingly. Ahasuerus 05:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Will change. The lack of comma was how the name was most frequently presented in the pubs. I sometimes get confused when the database rules require the published information to be modified. Bob 15:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the balance between entering bibliographic data as it appears in pubs and standardizing can be tricky. For example, we generally use the form of the title that appears on the title page. However, if the title page uses all caps ("INVASION FROM MARS!") we change it to mixed case ("Invasion from Mars!") -- unless there is good reason to believe that some of the words should be in all upper case, e.g. if "MARS" stands for "Multiverse Assault Retroviral System", then the title should be entered as "Invasion from MARS!" And so on and so forth... Ahasuerus 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Barbarian Scroll, #15 January 1991

Just checking to see if the title of "Interview Ken Kelly" may be "Interview with Ken Kelly" in your verified The Barbarian Scroll, #15 January 1991? Ahasuerus 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly it is correct as entered. Bob 15:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will update Notes. Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Gerry/Jerry Taloac

Could you please confirm that Gerry Taloac's name is spelled "Jerry Taloac" in this case? Thanks. Ahasuerus 06:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Bob 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blood Crime

Chapterbooks are generally not put into series, only their constituent short fiction titles are, so I have rejected your submission which would have added this CHAPTERBOOK title to the Rachel Morgan series. There are rare cases when we create series consisting of CHAPTERBOOKs, but only to handle special situations like Dr. Who. Ahasuerus 06:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you! How about Blood Work then? I submitted Blood Crime because Blood Work was already in that series. Bob 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same situation. I have removed the series information from the CHAPTERBOOK record and moved it to the SHORTFICTION record, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ancient Engineers

I approved the addition of the Dorset press edition of de Camp's "The Ancient Engineers", but I have a comment and a question. The comment is about the number line, which, as you wrote, says "10 9 8 7 6 5 4". The lowest printed number indicates the printing number, so I have changed Notes to reflect this fact. The question is whether we can be sure that the fourth printing appeared in 1990as the pub currently says. Is the year of this printing explicitly stated in the book or is 1990 the year of the first printing? TIA! Ahasuerus 06:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I had the same question. The book says 1990, and gives no other dates. The only de Camp bibliography I have is the 1983 Laughlin and Levack from Underwood-Miller, which obviously doesn't cover 1990. The Barnes & Noble version is identical to the Dorset Press volume, even to the dust jacket and book covers, and is dated 1993. So could Dorset have published 4 hardcover printings between 1990 and 1993? Seems really unlikely the book was that popular. Bob 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it was definitely quite popular, e.g. we have the 25th printing of the Ballantine Books edition on file, and B&N generally reprints only popular books. However, since the printing is undated, we don't want to guess, so I suggest we enter the date as 0000-00-00 and document what we know (i.e. that the book says 1990, but it appears to be the year of the first printing) in Notes. Ahasuerus 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Bob 21:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ever After by Kim Harrison

Hi, I have added to the notes for Ever After. More information about publication date, and the OCLC number. My copy (out from the library) has [10] pages before page 1, not counting the endpaper at the beginning, which is thicker and obviously of different paper. BungalowBarbara 23:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I normally only count back to the title page; when the front pages are given Roman numerals, that seems to be the usual practice. Bob 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
But what is the point of counting unnumbered pages before the book's main text if there is nothing on those pages for which you've created a content record and you need to place it among the other contents? Also, if you feel the need to count unnumbered pages (nothing requires you to), you have to start on the first page immediately after the front loose endpaper (of hardcovers), according to the help pages. Mhhutchins 23:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Conan Grimoire

Unfortunately, I approved some of your submissions out of order, so your submission that would have added a cover scan and "First printing (not stated)" to Notes became unapprovable. (This can happen when a submission contains a reference to a title record that no longer exists -- in this case some titles got merged in subsequent submissions.) I had to "hard reject" the original submission and then massage the pub to reflect what you wanted to do. Could you please review the result to make sure that it matches your intent? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. Sorry about the mix-up. Bob 15:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 23:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Conan the Liberator

FYI, I approved the addition of two titles to this pub and then disambiguated de Camp's "Introduction" by turning it into "Introduction (Conan the Liberator)". Ahasuerus 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry I missed that. Bob 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem, the process does get repetitive after awhile, which is why a second pair of eyes is good to have :) Ahasuerus 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Drinking Song from Silverlock

Just double checking if "Drinking Song from Silverlock" is attributed to John Myers Myers alone in The Conan Grimoire before I approve the VT submission. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that several of the items in the reprint books were simplified down to a single author where more than one author was listed in the original pub (frequently Amra). Another such item was Sublimated Bloodthirstiness, which had three authors in Amra, but only one in The Conan Swordbook. Part of that was the elimination of Conlon's contribution, but de Camp's reply to Anderson is included in the latter without attribution. Bob 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, approved. Ahasuerus 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Free-Speaking Verses"

I approved the merge of the two versions of "The Free-Speaking Verses", but I wonder about the title type. One of the original titles said POEM and the other SHORTFICTION, but in the Notes field of The Conan Grimoire you wrote that ""Stamford Bridge" and "The Free-Speaking Verses" are overall essays, but contain 6 and 4 Old Norse poems, respectively, translated by Anderson." Should this title be an ESSAY then to match the title type of "Stamford Bridge"? Also, we may want to add this information to the respective title records. Ahasuerus 04:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it should. This is one of those tough-to-classify items. The poems do tell a story. But Anderson's lead essay explains the background of the Old Norse poetry, and I'm most comfortable calling the items ESSAYs. I'll add the words to the title records. Bob 15:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Who Were the Æsir?

Since the spelling of "Æsir" is different in "Who Were the Æsir?" and "Who Were the Aesir?", I rejected the submissions that would have merged the two titles (and their related INTERIORART records) and created VTs instead.

Also, I wonder if you may want to add the words "2nd printing" to the Notes field of the 1974 reprint of Amra V2n3, May 1959. The way magazines are currently implemented in ISFDB, multiple printings are generally not supported, so the issue grid looks a bit weird, but at least nothing is majorly broken. Ahasuerus 04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both titles have the letters Æ at the start; I was shortcutting the correction by merging. When I entered the first, I wasn't aware of how to to create Æ. Unfortunately, there are no notes for the moderator with merges. Bob 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see! Sorry, I didn't realize what the intent was, but it's all fixed now. Ahasuerus 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Once again a clear difference between magazines and fanzines. I'm not aware of any magazine that reprints issues, but fanzines that become popular sometimes do. I'll check the three reprints for Amra to be sure they say second printing. Bob 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we have seen a few cases of bona fide magazine reprints, but, unfortunately, the current database design doesn't support them, so we have to squeeze them in the best we can. Ahasuerus 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert E. Briney's The Dying Earth

I am holding the proposed merge of the three versions of "The Dying Earth" pending Rtrace's response re: whether the version in his verified The Spell of Conan is a review. Ahasuerus 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me. I also own The Spell of Conan, and I assure you the articles are the same. I had to make the same change to "All about Eve" by Robert E. Howard, which was sometimes listed as an essay, but is really a review. Bob 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I have approved the submission. I also discovered that there is a bug in the software: if you merge a regular title with a Review title, the resulting review will have a blank "Author" field. I had to edit the record and add Jack Vance's name to it, but otherwise everything worked out OK. I will create a Bug report on SourceForge shortly. Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I also changed the title date from 1961-00-00 back to 1961-12-29 since that's the date of the first publication. Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for clearing this up!! Bob 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Divide and Rule

Could you please add the source of the additional information ("2500 trade copies. Also 2 leather-bound copies, one for the publisher and one for de Camp.") to the first edition of "Divide and Rule"? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bob 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First edition of The Great Monkey Trial

Please add your data source to the Note field of this record or do a primary verification of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. Bob 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lands Beyond

Is there a stated date of publication for this later printing or is there a secondary source that confirms the 1952 date? Mhhutchins 00:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I'll zero the date out. Sorry! Bob 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Blade of Conan

Publication subtitles are not used as title variants. I rejected your change to variant "The Blade of Conan: The World's Greatest Living Fantasy Writers Pay Tribute to Robert E. Howard" to "The Blade of Conan" and instead merged the title records. The publication titles remain unchanged, both both now show under The Blade of Conan. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know that, obviously. Thank you! Bob 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubber Dinosaurs and Wooden Elephants: Essays on Literature, Film, and History

I had to reject an import/export on Rubber Dinosaurs and Wooden Elephants: Essays on Literature, Film, and History. As you previously submitted a number of merges for the contents of that publication, those title records no longer existed. If you had submitted the import/export first (and assuming they had been processed in order which usually happens), then it would have worked. But in general, it's best to separate the two and wait for one set to be approved before submitting the other. Let me know if that didn't make sense. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Backwards again! Makes a lot of sense. I'll reimport, which if fortunately pretty simple. Thank you for the explanation. Bob 19:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Tales of Conan clones

A couple of questions about your proposed Tales of Conan clones:

  • If I read the notes correctly, the non-red boards were "later", yet the cloning preserves the 1955 date from the edition with the red boards. Is 1955 known, or should the date be different or unknown?
  • One of the clones says "black cloth boards", but the notes (in all of them) say the black boards were paper. Which is right?

I've left them on hold as a reminder. I'll accept and fix them up at the same time. Thanks. --MartyD 03:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting questions. All of the pages were printed at the same time. The red boards were bound first, the others later, but how much later isn't known. Nor is it known in what order or if they were all bound at the same time. I suppose that the non-red bindings should be date unknown, although the notes should perhaps say that the time of printing was identical for all variants. Currey says "black boards", no indication of paper or cloth. L&L says black paper. When I look at the boards, they did indeed seem to be cloth (and that's what I entered), but closer inspection confirms that they are paper textured to look like cloth. Sorry about that one. Thanks for catching these. Bob 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed the one note to say "paper" instead of "cloth". As for the dates, it doesn't sound like there's an obvious answer. With provenance for the 1955 printing(s), this seems similar to the challenge of dating various book club editions and having to rely on gutter codes; with that as a precedent, 1955 seems reasonable. I leave it to you to decide what you want to do about them (I encourage you, however, to record some of the additional info you state here in the notes, regardless of what you decide). --MartyD 14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A Song of the Anchor Chain

I've put this merge on hold to confirm the two titles. One is "A Song of the Anchor Chain"[1] and the other "A Song of the Anchor Chains"[2]. Should they be merged or a variant created?Kraang 01:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have forgotten to reply. They need to be merged. The plural title was entered wrong, and the merge would correct that. Bob 04:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Review variants

I have a couple of your submissions on hold that would make reviews variants of the reviewed titles. From the looks of things, I think you intended to link the reviews to those titles, instead, and picked the wrong operation? --MartyD 04:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Must have been half asleep. I pulled the submissions and linked the reviews. Thanks, Marty. Bob 04:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Monster in the Jungle" credit in Two-Gun Raconteur #14

Hi Bob. Would you do me a favor and double-check the author credit on "The Monster in the Jungle" in REH: Two-Gun Raconteur #14? User:DavehardyO1, who perhaps is in fact David A. Hardy, just did some updates to his author record (see David A. Hardy), and he has submitted a modification indicating he did NOT do that essay. If the author name is correct, can you find any information about that David A. Hardy that I could use to construct a disambiguated author record? Thanks. --MartyD 13:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems we have two David A. Hardys, one the English artist and one about whom REH:TGR says, "David Hardy is Howardom's official El Borak and desert adventure expert, having written extensively on the subject, most recently in the Del Rey collection of Howard's desert adventures." See The Early Adventures of El Borak and El Borak and Other Desert Adventures, for example. Bob 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will see what I can do to tease them apart. --MartyD 11:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked through my pubs and couldn't find anything. I have some people I can ask, though. Bob 15:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Fanscient, #11 Spring 1950

I'm afraid I rejected this submission by accident, rather than approving it. I apologize most heartily for the trouble and inconvenience that I'm sure I just cause. Dwarzel 02:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Everybody screws up sometimes. I know I do frequently. I reentered the pub. Bob 03:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How to Be a Politician

Would you please check the ISBN on How to Be a Politician? It is listed as 978-897350-14-0 which is only 12 characters. I believe it is missing a "1" after the 978. If you would either correct the ISBN or, if it is on the publication as shown, add a note that the error is in the publication and not the data entry, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed, added the missing 1. Bob 19:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Youth Walks on the Highway

I had to correct the author credit as given for this title, and added an earlier printing which changed the dates of the story and the interior art record. Also, I added a content record for SHORTFICTION, the standard procedure for CHAPTERBOOK type records. In making these changes I corrected the author credited in the review in The Fanscient #13-14. Mhhutchins 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I added a note to the effect that the author's name was given wrong. Bob 19:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fanciful Tales... import

I had to reject the submissions that imported contents into the two facsimile reprints of this fanzine because the system was unable to find the record from which you were importing the contents. I believe this was caused when I earlier merged the editor records in order to place them into a magazine series. I'm not sure why merging the editor records would have caused this since you're importing contents from a pub record. To rectify the situation, I've gone back and imported the contents from the original publication record for you. Please look at each of them to see if they match your copies. I apologize if this may have caused any inconvenience. Since there was only one issue of this fanzine, I see no problem with merging the editor records in order to have them appear under one record on Wollheim's page. If you disagree, it would be fairly simple to unmerge them. I'll let you make that decision. Mhhutchins

They are both fine, Michael. No harm done at all. Bob 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Maleus Maleficarum

I'm holding a submission to add a new record for this title because there already is a record for it in the database. Is there something different about the new one that I'm missing? Mhhutchins 18:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A little research has shown that the book was published as Malleus Maleficarum and that the original authors are credited as Henry Kramer and James Sprenger. Here is a photo of the Rodker edition. I've made changes in the original record. Please make any appropriate changes in the review in The Phantagraph. Mhhutchins 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah-ha. I see the new submission gives the correct title of the book. Since I've made those corrections in the original record, feel free to cancel the submission. Mhhutchins 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find the thing earlier, although I knew I had submitted it. Guess it was a spelling problem. Thanks, Michael. Bob 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sign of the Unicorn

There was already a record for a August printing of this title with the gutter code "Q32". I had already accepted your recent submission when I saw this. One record will have to be deleted. Mhhutchins 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I kept looking in "The Hand of Oberon" to find the "Q32" pub and not finding it. I don't know why I was so fixated on the wrong title; sorry about that. I kept my submission (I suspect the other submission was mine as well) because the old one had the date of publication as August, which I doubt. Based on the gutter code and publication date of the first printing, I would expect the date of publication to be September. But because I don't know that, I left the date as 1975-00-00. Bob 03:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the records that clearly show a relationship between the gutter code and the publication date, it's been established that the publication date is roughly six weeks after the printing date. You can use this proven pattern as a basis for estimating the month of publication of Doubleday printed books that have a gutter code. The best reason for doing so in this case is that it would place the later printing after the first one. Otherwise, the system lists a year-dated record before a month-dated one. Your call. Mhhutchins 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know that. Thanks, Michael. Bob 17:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Eyrie (logo)"

Should this be credited to Brosnitch or Brosnatch? Also, if this is the same illustration consider merging the interiorart records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this, and am fairly certain that it should be Brosnatch. I'm also puzzled by the addition of "(logo)" to the title. I don't think we need another disambiguation. There is already "The Eyrie" for the full page version of the heading for the the column and "The Eyrie (variant)" for the single text column version which probably first appeared later. For appearances where it is unknown which version of the Brosnatch artwork is used, we have used the same disambiguation as the letter column itself, e.g. "The Eyrie (Weird Tales, February 1938)". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the spelling. I noticed at least one of the cases where the issue date was used, but that seems to me to be a false disambiguation. I don't particularly care if "(logo)" is used, but using the date seems at best confusing to me since the illustration in each issue is the same. I intend to merge the illustrations when I complete the Weird Tales facsimiles I have (another half dozen or so), so I need guidance on what the title should be when I do merge them. I presume merging will change all of the titles to one, wiping out the dated versions now used. Bob 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately (or depending upon how you look at it, fortunately), those disambiguated by date records are in unverified pub records. I suppose the editor who entered them had no idea if the logos were the same or not, so he was correct to disambiguate them with the date. But if anyone can confirm that the same art was used throughout all of these issues, regardless of its size, it should just be title "The Eyre" (that's what it illustrates, right?) without any disambiguation at all. Mhhutchins 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I see now that there are two versions: The Eyrie and The Eyrie (variant). They appear in many verified pub records. Bob, please use the descriptions of each to see which one appears in your records and then merge the records you added to the database with the appropriate record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll merge the ones I've entered (which are in both the magazine and the facsimiles) as you suggest; they all have the identifier "(logo)". Based on Ron's input above, I would not hesitate to include issues earlier than and between mine, either, but the unverified issues do not show "The Eyrie" at all. I'll use the earliest date I have, but have no idea when the logo first appeared. Michael, you might also note that all of the unverified issues I've filled in also did not count the covers in the number of pages; I added the covers to the ones I modified. Bob 23:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed the change of the page counts in the ones you're updating using the facsimilies as your source. The source for these unverified records is unknown, but they probably came from the files of one of the very early administrators of the database, i.e. created before the database could be updated by the public (circa 2006). This was very likely before the "covers count" rule. Until each of them can be primary verified (or corrected from facsimiles), it's not going to do much harm to leave them alone. I could check them using my Miller/Contento (who uses the "+" to indicate a magazine which starts page 1 inside the publication, a system we should have used instead of the awkward system we use now), but personally I think it's very little value in return for the time it's going to take to fix them. Feel free to continue making the corrections when you come across them. Mhhutchins 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


This periodical is considered a non-genre publication because it deals primarily with film. In order for a non-genre magazine to be eligible for the database, it must include fiction, and only the fiction and its illustrations are added to the contents of the record. These rules for non-genre magazines are documented here. Mhhutchins 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Bob 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Interview title

Is the title of this interview the same as given on the piece's title page in the publication? We usually only use this form of disambiguation for the SERIAL type. Mhhutchins 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the subject of the interview to Charles P. Baudelaire, the author's canonical name. Mhhutchins 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The part 1 is not in the title, but the interview says it is continued in the next issue at the end of the article. I don't know if a second issue was ever printed, though. Bob 23:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest giving the title as stated in the pub, and then note the circumstances in the record's Note field. Mhhutchins 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Bob 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Paradox, Summer 2005

I should not have accepted the submission adding this issue of the periodical, as there was already one in the database. I didn't notice the duplicate until I went to add the title to an editor series. (Title record here.) You'll have to reconcile the two, delete one, and merge the duplicate content records. Mhhutchins 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The same situation with this title. Mhhutchins 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care of these. I notice that the existing "Paradox" lists the historical fiction stories, which I did not. Which form is preferred? Bob 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If a magazine/fanzine/collection/anthology is considered spec-fic, even if one or more pieces is not really spec-fic, we create a content record for it. You have the option of adding a note in the title record's Note field that the story is nongenre. (We don't have a NONGENRE type for SHORTFICTION, only for NOVELs.) If a magazine/fanzine/collection/anthology is considered NONGENRE, then we only add content records for the spec-fic pieces, even if they're borderline. Mhhutchins 23:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll add the material and notes. Thanks, Michael. Bob 23:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pigeons from Hell

If this graphic novel is an adaptation of Howard's story, then the author would be Scott Hampton. Under the rules of entering non-genre publications (which include spec-fic graphic novels), this wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the database, unless you can argue that Hampton is "above the threshold". But, if all of the words of Howard's story is included in the text of this graphic adaptation, it would be eligible. Feel free to put forth your points for including it on the Rules & Standards discussion page. I've placed the submission on hold. Mhhutchins 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first statement; Howard and Hampton are coauthors, much in the way that others have become coauthors of Howard by taking fragments Howard wrote and "finishing" them. In this case the words are Howard's but not all of Howard's words are used. And it's not a "graphic novel" in any case. However, I just don't care enough to argue, and I'll just drop the pub. Bob 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Floor Above (Frankenstein logo)"

Does this artwork illustrate the story "The Floor Above"? If so, its title should not be disambiguated. If it does not illustrate the story, then the record should be retitled. If it is the exact artwork used for another story, it can be varianted to the record. I'm holding the submission to merge this with the artwork for the 7 and 8 parts of the Frankenstein serial in Weird Tales. Mhhutchins 00:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem that there is no provision for a note to the moderator for merges. During this time period, Weird Tales had a feature called "Weird Story Reprint"; "Frankenstein" and "The Floor Above" were two of these. Early on, they didn't have any illustration; after a certain point, the illustration for all (all I've encountered so far) is the logo for the three I merged. After the merger, I intended to change the title to "Weird Story Reprint Logo". I used that title in the contents of the September 1933 issue. Bob 01:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Submission accepted. And you can make a feature request to add a "Note to Moderator" field to submissions to merge. Mhhutchins 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard: The Power of the Writing Mind

With only three pieces of fiction by the same author, this publication seems to be more of a collection of essays (NONFICTION), rather than a collection of stories by more than one author (ANTHOLOGY). Also, the piece on page 12 is probably mistyped. Mhhutchins 05:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As I read the "Pub Type" descriptions, I agree it should be NONFICTION, even though there are three stories. The content on p. 12 is typed correctly; note the item on p. 8. The two are both labelled simply "REH" by the artist, and the [2] disambiguates the two. Bob 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? The first one was INTERIORART. The one on page 12 is an OMNIBUS. Such a type inside an ANTHOLOGY (or NONFICTION) is exceedingly rare! >) Mhhutchins 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you thought I meant: that it was a typing error, when I really meant that the record was incorrectly typed (categorized). Mhhutchins 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If you hadn't caught that error, I never would have. I have found that when I'm doing a string of INTERIORARTs, sometimes my hand comes back to the keyboard a little too far right, and I hit an "o" instead of an "i". Thank you! Bob 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Series Data...

...should be entered into the parent record, not the variant record. (Re this title). That why I rejected it the first time, giving you the reason why. Then I mistakenly accepted it the second time because I thought you'd got the message and corrected the mistake. Mhhutchins 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you reject a submission, the chances are greater than 50/50 that I won't realize it. I'm likely to think I just screwed up the submission somehow. So if you want to be sure I realize your objection, it is best to leave a message. Sorry about that. Bob 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard's Worms of the Earth

I suppose the moderator who accepted the submission adding this record didn't realize it was a comic book/graphic novel. Even if it were eligible for the database (based on the current rules I don't believe it qualifies), it's definitely not an ANTHOLOGY, which is a publication that contains more than one work of fiction by different authors. Mhhutchins 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not, although it contains material from a comic book (as I thought I had clearly stated). It really was meant to be a way to advertise Wandering Star editions of Howard's work by focusing on the artists Gary Gianni and Mark Schultz. I changed the classification to NONFICTION since the majority of the pub is essays. Bob 01:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

David A. Hardy

Per this earlier note, I've made a David A. Hardy (III) for the Howard-oriented essayist. If you find out anything more about him, let me know, and we can make the disambiguation friendlier.

One other thing came up while doing this: There's another title, Viktor's Doom, which is short fiction and not an essay, that was in the "David A. Hardy" set but isn't by the artist. This one's actually credited to "David Hardy", so the mapping to "David A. Hardy" may have been a mistake. Anyway, if you're finding out things and have a possibility of confirming (or denying) that this David Hardy is NOT our "(III)" guy, that would be helpful. Thanks. --MartyD 11:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BCE of The Complete Chronicles of Conan

The ISBN stated in this edition should be moved to the Note field, and the book club ID number should be given in the ISBN/Catalog # field. Mhhutchins 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have done that if I knew the book club ID number, but I don't. It is nowhere on the book, and of course, there is no jacket, the usual place to find that number. The only reason I know it's a book club edition is because that's where I bought it. Perhaps you can locate one if you have the old book club circulars. I received the book 6/2/06. Bob 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was not a member at that time, and only rejoined in 2009. Locus1 doesn't list it. Is it possible that it wasn't a BC printing, but just an offering for club members of the second printing of the trade edition at a discount? That happens occasionally at the SFBC. Without the ID number or any other internal evidence of it being a BCE, it's going to be hard to distinguish it from the publisher's trade edition. Mhhutchins 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it lacks the color frontispiece, I suspect it was printed exclusively for the book club, or maybe book clubs if one in England also offered it, and not a trade edition. I have other book club editions without a jacket or visible catalog number. Two of them have different-colored boards from the trade editions, the other is absolutely identical as far as I can tell (a tp). I can also recall two tps where the only difference I can find is the number line showing second printing. I believe in all these cases the publisher of the trade edition also printed the SFBC edition. Interestingly, the price is seldom lower for the SFBC books; Amazon discounts enough that with free shipping and no taxes, their cost is actually lower than the club price. Bob 15:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Easton Press ed. of Conan the Barbarian

According to the Howardworks site this was published in January 2010. Other sources concur it was in 2010. Also, is Prion given as the publisher on the book's title page and/or spine? I suppose you'll be removing the link to the Prion edition's cover. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Prion's name is on the title page and copyright page; as HowardWorks says, apparently Easton just put on their own binding and sprayed on the gold leaf on the page edges. The pub does not have the usual Easton colored frontispiece or acid-free pages. I'll fix the date when I upload the new cover scan. Bob 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Also replace the slash with an ampersand in the publisher's name. Otherwise, the format would lead a user to think that Prion is an imprint of Easton Press. The ampersand shows its a joint publication between two different publishers. Mhhutchins 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Miscast Barbarian

Is the piece on page 32 of this publication credited to "Steven" while the others are credited to "Stephen"? Mhhutchins 21:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the page for "Steven Fabian" I see someone has been varianting "Steve Fabian" to "Steven". I'll start correcting the variants to the canonical name. Mhhutchins 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've left the three that were directly credited to Steven Fabian. Please confirm that they're correctly credited and if so, please make them into variants of "Stephen". Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Bob 00:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A Short Biography of Robert E. Howard

As the author of the main content (and titled work) of this publication shouldn't Rusty Burke be credited as the author of the publication? Editors are only credited as the author of NONFICTION publications which contain several smaller nonfiction works (essays) by different authors. This appears to be one major work with an editorial and an introduction. BTW, if the editorial is untitled it should be titled "(Editorial) (A Short Biography of Robert E. Howard)". The way it is now implies that it is titled "Untitled Editorial". (Of course, that could actually be its title!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've credited this pub to Burke in my own files, but credits Ashford as the editor, and certainly the artwork is really extensive. I have no problem changing the author to Burke and I'll fix the title on the editorial. Bob 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pulps: Fifty Years of American Pop Culture

The unnumbered pages in this publication should be added to the page count field as "xvi+239+[48]". I'll notify the other verifier. Mhhutchins 02:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Bob 14:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lovecraft Studies #18

Hello. In verified pub 408480, could you please check the last name of author of letter on p.32: Behrends or Behreads. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 05:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

Good catch! An obvious typo, since I would not enter a letter from anyone not in the database. Bob 14:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Mountain Men"?

Can you confirm the title of the content in this record? Mhhutchins 22:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed with merge. Bob 23:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Please add a colon between the letters and the numbers as in "LCCN: 123456". This will help us to do a single universal change if we ever get around to creating a dedicated field to other catalog numbers. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Missed one, I guess. O.K. Bob 23:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Weirdbook 30 Combined With Whispers

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

Please note that one is softcover, one hardcover. Please remember to sign your notes. Bob 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I'll try to pay more attention to the actual records next time:) ForJohnScalzi 06:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

The People That Time Forgot

Are you certain that the entire novel is reprinted in the last 42 pages of this magazine? Its book publications run from 108 pages to 154. Mhhutchins 02:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to tell. I don't own the book. The magazine gives no sources. It is quarto, so they fit a lot more on a page; "Sea Curse" is 3 pages in this mag and 7 or 8 pages in several books. And if it's abridged, it's not done by cutting off the end of the story. There are seven chapters, with 5 "subheadings" in the seventh chapter (2 to 7 subheads in other chapters), if that helps. I guess I have no reason to think it's not complete. Bob 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It may be the same, but because it's printed in a MAGAZINE-typed publication, we'll have to make the record into a SERIAL type and change the name to "The People That Time Forgot (Complete Novel)", and then variant it to the NOVEL record. I'll reject the submission to merge and do those other submissions for you. Mhhutchins 03:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you. I have a question about that. The Howard essay The Hyborian Age was originally published in three parts in The Phantagraph. Those three parts are now in the data base but not merged with the essay. Can I just merge the three in? A complication is that the publication of The Phantagraph was stopped before the essay was complete. Bob 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You can variant each of the three records to the record for the whole essay, but do not merge them (we'd lose their separate identity). There are also two essays The Hyborian Age, Part 1 and The Hyborian Age, Part 2 that were published in various Conan titles by Lancer Books. I don't know how these relate to the three parts serialized in 1936, but they should remain separate from those titles, yet varianted to the whole as well. I've noticed that "Part 1" is in the 1953 Gnome edition of The Coming of Conan. Can you confirm that this is the same piece published as "Part 1" in the Lancer pubs? Also, was "Part 2" ever published earlier than 1972? One last question: is the version published in this publication (starting on page 41), the same as the whole? And does it actually have the "Final Draft" appended to its title on page 41? If so, you should variant i tot the whole. If not, you can merge it with the whole. Mhhutchins 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Complex situation. The three pieces in The Phantagraph make up "Part 1". This covers the "history" up through the time of Conan. Part 2 is the "history" after Conan, and was never published by The Phantagraph. The first complete publication was by the LANY Cooperative (Los Angeles something or other) in 1938; this pub is not in our data base, and details are not in The next complete version was published by the Pennsylvania Dutch Cheese Press in 1954 (William Evans for the Fantasy Amateur Press Association), also missing from both the ISFDB data base and again no details in Obviously both are very rare. The first widely available source for the entire essay or story was Arkham's Skull-Face and Others in 1946. The version in the recent The Hyborian Age from REHF Press is indeed labelled "Final Draft", and is the same as all the other printed complete versions, and needs to be a variant of them.
Ideally, I would variant the three parts in The Phantagraph into "Part 1", then variant "Part 1" and "Part 2" into the whole. However, the software doesn't allow nested variants. So I will just variant all of the partials into the whole, unless you suggest otherwise. I can explain how the parts relate in the notes. Bob 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Mhhutchins 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This raises another question: there are a number of Howard letter excerps; should they be varianted into the whole letters? Bob 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No. That would open a whole new can of worms. None of the excerpts in the database (most of which are fiction) are varianted to the record of their whole publication. They are considered individual works. The reason I suggested the exception for "The Hyborian Age" is that it's similar to how we handle SERIAL types which are varianted to their whole publication. Because ESSAYs can not also be SERIALs (which is restricted to fiction only), we can consider that the publishers of the parts of "The Hyborian Age" had original intentions of publishing the whole work serially. (It happened quite often with fictional serials when a magazine died before it finished a serial.) As long we add the necessary notes explaining the relationship, we can get by with this exception to the standard. But we should not use it as a precedence to variant other cases where parts of an essay (or letter) were excerpted, because the publishers of those excerpts had no intention to ever publish the whole work serially. Hope this makes sense. (If only we had a textual relationship function, this would solve the whole matter.) Mhhutchins 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Thank you, Michael. Bob 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Varianting duplicate records

There were two records for the C. S. Youd letter in Weird Tales, as you were aware. If you'd merged them before varianting them, it would save three further submissions. Just keep that in mind if the situation arises again. Mhhutchins 02:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Bob 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pulp Masters

This publication should undoubtedly be typed as NONFICTION. Mhhutchins 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I did't realize there was no fiction in it until I entered the information. Bob 01:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

John Edwards / Tom Johnson

I'm debating about how to go about this. Because there are at least four titles from the 1930s which are obviously not Johnson. And two short stories from the 1990s that may possibly be his. The essay in MEGAVORE is most definitely his (he had two pieces in the same issue). I've varianted it, which leaves those six fiction titles. Instead of creating a pseudonym for the name "John Edwards", I think it would be best to change Johnson's "John Edwards" credits to "John Edwards (II)" and then make that into his pseudonym. In other words, disambiguate the name first, and then make it into a pseudonym. What do you think? Mhhutchins 03:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable approach. I was nervous about the pseudonym, too, which is why I only did the one article with that name. Ran into ambiguous names with David A. Hardy a little while ago, where there seem to be three people with that name in the database. Want me to do it? Bob 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be easier if I did it, so you wouldn't have to wait for moderation of the submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The 1999 story is definitely his: it was published in a periodical he edited. I'm also thinking the one from 1995 is quite possibly his as well. It was published in a sword/sorcery/fantasy semi-prozine. I'm going to take a chance and variant it to him. Mhhutchins 03:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that makes sense. Thanks, Michael. Bob 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir Harold

Hello! I this verified 409405 could you please check the name of the artist , is it Stephan or Stephen Fabian. Thank you! 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

Stephen. Fixed. Thank you for catching it. Bob 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gollancz ed. of Over the Edge

I have your submission to change this record to a second printing. When there's only one record for an edition, it's safe to assume that it is the publisher's first printing. So it would have been better to clone this record to create a second printing. Otherwise there is no longer a record for the first printing. In this case the record was Tuck verified, which would move the Tuck verification to the second printing (the one you created by editing the record.) I'm going to accept the submission, but not before I clone the record to create a first printing, and then move the Tuck verification to it. Mhhutchins 04:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the software was changed recently and only the verifier can remove his verifications. So I'll leave a note on Rtrace's talk page about removing the verifications. Mhhutchins 04:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I intended to clone for a first printing once the submission was approved. It never occurred to me that this created a problem with non-primary verifications. It seems to me that once primary verifications are made, the other verifications are kind of immaterial anyhow, but I'll take care not to create the problem in the future. I'm really glad that only the verifier can remove his verifications now because I accidentally removed one of Bluesman's a couple of weeks ago when I got confused by a variant (I did notify him and apologize). Given the Tuck verification, wouldn't it have been easier to approve the submission, clone it, then go to the submission and remove the "second printing" from the notes and the month from the publication date? Bob 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what I did, but in different order. But that doesn't affect the Tuck verification which remained on the original record which is now a second printing. Maybe non-primary verifications don't matter (many editors would disagree), but when you change the data of a record that has these verifications, you have to deal with that fact. Would you not think it strange that there's a Tuck verification for a second printing, but not one for the first printing? And the primary verifier wouldn't be the one questioned, the Tuck verifier would. Mhhutchins 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't very clear. If you clone the submission, then leave the clone alone, but go back to the original submission and remove the "second printing" and month, then you have created a first printing with the proper Tuck verification. Anyhow, thanks for taking care of another mess I made. Bob 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A moderator can't "clone the submission" or "remove" any data that's part of the submission. We only have three options: Accept, Reject, or Hold. Also, cloning a record creates a new record clean of all verifications. Anyway, it's fixed now. In the future, clone the existing record to create a second printing, leaving the original record intact. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

M. Brundage

I see you've made several records by Margaret Brundage into variants by M. Brundage. It should be the other way. Mhhutchins 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I skipped a step. I should have made the variants for the name (M. to Margaret). The variants I made don't include all the lettering that was on the original covers. That is, they are the same illustrations, but not the same as the covers. Would they then be merged with the original covers, or variants? Bob 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Only merge if the title and author credit are exactly the same. If they're not, make them into variants with Margaret Brundage as the canonical author (artist). Mhhutchins 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Length designation

Use the abbreviation "nv" to indicate a novella-length work of SHORTFICTION. The system doesn't recognize "na" (as in this record) and will leave it as entered. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Alleys of Darkness" interior art

I'm holding a submission to merge three records of this, only two of which are credited as by Jayem Wilcox. The other one is uncredited and appears in Waterfront Fists & Others. If it's not credited in that publication, you shouldn't merge it with the other two records, but make it into a variant. Mhhutchins 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is credited there as well, and the original entry of "uncredited" was incorrect. Again, it's tough to tell because there is no note to the moderator on merges. Beyond that, I've seen a lot of cases where there was no attribution in the original pub (or the person who entered the data didn't know the attribution symbol), but then another pub identified the artist and his/her name was then entered in the first pub as author. There is a pub about Weird Tales that apparently identifies the artist for all artwork that is sometimes cited; these illos are not varianted, but the artists name is simply attached. So even if J. M. Wilcox's name wasn't on the Waterfront Fists illo, why would it be wrong to assign that name? Bob 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. We're more lenient with art credits than with fiction credits. You could add the right credit BUT you must note that the work is uncredited and give the source for the credit. I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wildcat Books

Can you confirm the name of the publisher of this publication? We have other books from Ron Hanna published by Wild Cat Books. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like one word on the cover, but clearly two on the title page. Bob 22:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Ryburn Phillips

Please check your verified The Fanscient, #1 September 1947 to see if the credit for the interior art work is really for Ralph Ryburn Phillips (missing A) or for Ralph Rayburn Phillips. The record either need to be corrected if a typo in the database or pseudonym established if a typo in the publication. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the typo. Thanks! Bob 22:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Over the Edge Cover Image

Had to reject the addition of the cover image to this Over the Edge as your edit only consisted of the file name and not the whole URL. You will need to re-enter it with the whole URL path. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Must have copied instead of copying link. Sorry, fixed. Bob 03:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Jay Key Klein

Would you please check your verified MagiCon to see if Jay Key Klein is really Jay Kay Klein? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure is. Fixed. Thank you!! Bob 18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Spicy Adventure Stories

This is considered a nongenre magazine, so only spec-fic stories should be entered into the database. Whether an author is already in the database is not a factor when adding shortfiction. We have no way of effectively recording nongenre shortfiction, regardless of the author's status in the db. All rules regarding nongenre magazines should be followed. Mhhutchins 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the stories are already in the data base from other sources. Should they be included? Bob 03:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
If the nongenre stories are in the database because they appeared in a spec-fic publication (magazine, anthology, collection, etc) then they should be left alone. But if a nongenre story is in the db only in a nongenre publication, they should be removed. (Each has to be handled on an individual basis. If you can point out these stories, I can give you a clearer analysis of whether or not they should be in the db.) It is against ISFDB policy to add a nongenre publication (like Spicy-Adventure Stories) just to add another printing of a nongenre story (which I think is what you propose) even if that story is already in the database because of its inclusion in a spec-fic publication. For example, if a nongenre story by E. Hoffmann Price was published in one of his collections, then it's clearly eligible for the database. If that story appeared in a nongenre publication (like Spicy-Adventure Stories), no one should create a record for that magazine. Its source can be noted in the story's title record. Mhhutchins 03:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Bradbury's Nefertiti-Tut Express

Hello, Bob! I hope you are able to help me in this case: I have a german translation of an ESSAY by Bradbury - alas, without any sourcing data or an original title. The title is strongly reminiscent of the CHAPTERBOOK you verified, though. I am wondering if there may be any connection stated in your publication, or if they may be possibly variants (the different lengths would strongly speak against this possibility, unless there'd be really only a small amount of text on each page of your pub.). In short, 'my' essay has Bradbury's musings about life, death and philosophy. (There's also a same-titled poem by Bradbury, but my text certainly isn't a poem). Stonecreek 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the pub and could find nothing. Bradbury also wrote a first draft of a screenplay with the same title, and it was that screenplay that was the basis for the chapbook. The chapbook was produced by Terence McVicker, a book dealer in California, and Gary Gianni. You might contact Terence -- he's nice guy, and I know he's aware of the ISFDB. His e-mail address is; I don't know if he registered as an editor, but suspect he has not. I've dealt with him a number of times, including at last year's Windy City Pulp and Paperback Show where he and Gary were selling the chapbook. He might or might not have information on the German text.
The text of the chapbook isn't very long, there are a lot of illustrations. The test begins, "In the late summer of 188-, a train leaves Cairo heading across the desert, with a locomotive, fuel-tender, water-car, and three or four passenger cars..." and ends with, "A last flow of sparks appears above the hills at a distance and dissolve away in firefly illumination. Then all is darkness, a sound of soft bells and music and..." Let me know if your translation matches! Bob 20:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look into your fine book, Bob! I already suspected that the two texts weren't connected, and it was only a kind of desperate attempt to ask. My guess is that the essay probably was published in a fanzine or a convention program book that wasn't already edited into ISFDB, so I think it's really improbable that Terence has some knowledge about it: it must have been published sometime up to the early 80s. Obviously, Bradbury had some liking to the title, using it at least three different times. Stonecreek 09:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


I added the frontispiece to the contents of your verified Donnerjack. I also think the publication date should be July 1997. The date the Certificate of Authenticity was signed can't be the date the book was available. What do you think? --Willem H. 20:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that the certificate was signed and dated after Lindskold signed the pages that were later bound into the books, and therefore was done slightly before publication but after printing. The July date seems a reasonable estimate, perfectly acceptable to me. Please feel free to change to that date. Bob 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Also adapted the notes a bit. Thanks! --Willem H. 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A Night in the Lonesome October

I added a separate contents item for the frontispiece of this verified pub. Also added pagenumbers and a note about the source of the publication date. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Bob 20:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

REH: Two-Gun Raconteur #12, Fall 2008

Hello, In your verified 386862 could you please check the last name of essay author on p.45. Is it NielsOn or NielsEn. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

Nielsen. Thank you! Bob 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary submissions

If you're going to merge editor records into a single annual record, then it's unnecessary to update each one to add the series data. Just add the series data to the single record formed from the merge. One submission instead of 12 (or whatever the number of issues merged). Mhhutchins 23:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Spaces

The following two titles in your verified pubs are missing a space after a "The":

Would you mind checking and either correcting or adding notes if the typo is in the publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Both my typos; I commonly mess up "the", sometimes as "teh", sometimes with the following space as "th e" or eliminating the space. Most I catch. Thank you for picking these up! Bob 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hyborian Age

Unless you actually shelled out $3750 for this publication, please add the source for your data to the Notes. But if you did buy a copy of! Mhhutchins 02:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: it should be typed as NONFICTION instead of CHAPTERBOOK. Mhhutchins 02:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could have bought it, but it's out of my price range. I don't see the NONFICTION, though. It's entirely fiction. I was torn between CHAPTERBOOK and ANTHOLOGY, and I could easily see changing the ESSAYs to SHORTFICTIONs. Classification is tough with background material the authors used in constructing their fiction. I notice that the J. R. R. Tolkien background material for his fiction has no material labelled as NONFICTION. I'll change the essays to shortfictions. Bob 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been asking since Day One for a type called NONFACT ARTICLE. Until (or if) that ever happens, I have no way to advise you how to type these kinds of pieces, as it seems to be left up to the whim of the editor and the accepting moderator. Before you can change The Hyborian Age into shortfiction, you're going to have to discuss it with those editors who have verified it otherwise. Good luck. Mhhutchins 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
As my copy has gone I can't really say what it is without reading it again. --Chris J 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is an in-universe essay. We seem to treat most of these as shortfiction (no length), so I have no problem with the change. --Willem H. 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


I accepted the submission updating the author data of Dalmatius, but reversed the legalname field to ISFDB standard: Lastname, Firstname. Also, the URL of the website isn't a valid one. Can you recheck it? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it changed since 2006. I entered the new website. Bob 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Always test a website before updating an author's data. Some moderators may not test links (like a certain anal retentive one we both know.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Trumpet #10

Hello! In your verified 390947 could you please check the last name of artist on p.31 (and in the title). Is it Nelson or NiElson? I suspect it to be this person 171341, who had another piece in earlier Trumpet. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 02:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

Very good catch! Yes, it is Nielson. Bob 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That was quick! Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 03:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

Weirdbook 15

Can you confirm that the artist credit for the piece on page 46 of this record is correct? (We have records for a "Petterson" in the db.) Also, if an interiorart piece is not attributed to a work of fiction, it should be titled the same as the publication which it illustrates. The same would go for the pieces on pages 52 and 68. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That is the way the artwork is credited in the pub. I can't imagine that it's not the same guy, just credited wrong. I changed 4 INTERIORART items from "untitled" to "Weirdbook 15" in the pub; I'll check other Weirdbooks to see if I did a bunch of others wrong back then. Bob 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'll create a pseudonym and variant it. Mhhutchins 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nov & Dec 2006 issues of The Cimmerian

Are these issues correctly dated? Unless it specifically gives a publication date of January 2007, we should use the date of the issue as the date of the publication. Mhhutchins 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The November issue editorial says that it's being published two months late. Both issues were received January 31, 2007. Note that the index for 2006 didn't come out until December 2007. Keeping up with monthly publication was apparently overpowering. Bob 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
We can't base magazine publication dates on the appearance of the issue. ISFDB records for periodicals are based solely on the cover date. You can always record the appearance date in the Note field. I'm not going to force you to change the dates of these issues, as long as you know this is not the ISFDB standard. Whatever you decide, it should be noted to keep other users from asking the same question. Mhhutchins 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Hyborian Age" things

I accepted all of your "The Hyborian Age" changes, but two follow-ups:

  • SHORTFICTION should be given a length. I wasn't sure if it should be SHORTSTORY (ss) or something longer, especially on the later/finished versions. You can also use SHORTFICTION (sf) for "unknown"/"undetermined".
  • For the serial publications: part 1, part 2, and part 3, I accepted SHORTFICTION, but I think you should instead use SERIAL. It is ok to use SERIAL for serializations of shorter-than-NOVEL sized works.

BTW, I hate giving fictional essays a "shortstory" length when they're not short stories, but it has to be viewed purely as a length thing saying nothing about the type of content. --MartyD 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Marty, perhaps you missed the previous discussion (5 topics up), but you accepted the submission to change this record without input from all of those editors who had verified it as an essay. Mhhutchins 18:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Since we don't have a "Fictional Essay" type SHORTFICTION makes sense to me as long as others agree. The "Plumage from Pegasus" entries in F&SF are a similar case and I generally enter them as SHORTFICTION without a length.--swfritter 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Missed both. Don't know how I didn't scroll down on that page, having checked the other changes. I'll watch the feedback and restore all to ESSAY if need be. --MartyD 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bob asked me to comment on changing "The Hyborian Age" from essay to shortfiction for the Conan novel I verified. In one sense, it's an essay establishing the "history" leading up to the Conan novels. In another sense, it's "alternate history" which I've always considered fiction. So, just let me know which one should be used in the future; I have no dog in this fight :) AndonSage 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John ?. Byrne

In your verified pubs, you have letters from John F. Byrne, Editor, Fiction House, Inc. and John R. Byrne, Editor, Fiction House, Inc.. Could you please double check the middle initial on those records? I doubt they are different people. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The "F" is correct. The John R. should be empty now. Bob 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
And addresses, titles, or affiliations should not be part of a record's author credit field. Mhhutchins 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

'The Doom of Hyboria" series

I rejected the submissions to change the names of the various subseries of this super-series to just "First Triptych", etc. If I had done so, then the name of the series would be lost when it was displayed in the publication record. For example, in this record, the series displayed for the three poems would just be "First Triptych" without any mention of "The Doom of Hyboria". That series name would be too generic to be of any value. Mhhutchins 19:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

David A. Hardy (III)

I have rejected the submissions to create variants for the works published by the non-artist "David A. Hardy" into records by "David A. Hardy (III)". This is not how the credits of disambiguated authors should be handled. Just give the credit as "David A. Hardy (III)" in the original record without creating a variant. I've explained this in several rejects over the past couple of weeks, and have gone ahead to make the proper crediting. I did not do so for today's rejections, asking that you do it yourself, in the hope that you'll have a better understanding of how credits for disambiguated authors work. (It would help if you'd read the reason why a submission is rejected for those that don't require a lot of explanation.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't look at rejected submissions. Bob 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? That's bizarre. May I ask why? Mhhutchins 02:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm seldom aware when submissions are rejected. Without a flag that indicates a problem, it just never occurs to me that something may have been turned down. And I guess I just figure that if the moderator doesn't want the information entered I seldom care enough to argue about it. I'm just trying to contribute and not interested in forcing my view on anyone else. Bob 15:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being forced to be interested in anyone's opinion or viewpoint. It's a communication tool. In many cases, it only takes a few seconds to give the reason for a rejection and saves the moderator from having to "force" his view on the editor in a long conversation on their talk page. It also frees the editor from having to endure it. :) Now I know why I've rejected a submission, only to have the same one come up a day or so later. Mhhutchins 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Undesired Princess et al

I expanded the notes for de Camp's The Undesired Princess. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also his The Tritonian Ring and Other Pusadian Tales. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And his Solomon's Stone. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And with Fletcher Pratt, The Incomplete Enchanter. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And The Carnelian Cube. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
And The Castle of Iron. I also added the subtitle. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
And Wall of Serpents Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Revelations from Yuggoth, #3

In your verified 396042 could you please check letter author's name on p. 64 Willum vs. Wilum. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

Good catch! Wilum, of course. Fixed, varianted. Bob 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sleep No More

I expanded the notes for Derleth's Sleep No More. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron. Any input on "The Hyborian Age" classification? The others who verified pubs containing this item have so far agreed that a change to SHORTFICTION is appropriate. Bob 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Windy City Pulp Stories

All three records of this were incorrectly entered as a COLLECTION type. This type is reserved for single-author collections of short fiction or poetry. Based on the amount of fiction in each of the three publications, they should be typed as NONFICTION. Mhhutchins 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixed. Bob 21:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Shores by Jack McDevitt

Hi, Just uploaded a new cover scan for "Ancient Shores" (with spine and a bit clearer). Cheers Viter 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you. Bob 20:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Campbell, Jr. ! ?

Hello, Bob! This author has one item that is not varianted, but appears in a pub. verified by you. I am 90% sure that it is the most prominent Campbell, just without his junior self, but I want to play it safe and ask if you can variant the title accordingly? Stonecreek 10:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Of Things Beyond" was the title of the column Campbell, Jr. wrote for Unknown. Perhaps this piece reprints one of those columns and should be varianted to it? Mhhutchins 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly the same author, although not a reprint. It's an explanation why Unknown folded after WWII, explaining the economics of magazines with modest circulation, and how they changed after the war. But only the content of the article shows that it's the same Campbell; nowhere is the "Jr." indicated. I'll do the variant. Bob 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Herbert West

Several sources including give the publication dates of the Home Brew issues as Feb-Jul 1922, including the Peter Straub-edited Library of America edition of Lovecraft, according to Wikipedia. And most sources give these issues as the first six of the fanzine. Here is a link to an auction of Vol. 1, No. 1 which clearly shows the date as February. Mhhutchins 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Since I submitted that "change", I have found a couple of other reference date in Zombies! that were incorrect. Glad you could verify the February date. Bob 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem (except that I forgot to give this topic a name and it got mixed in with the previous topic!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror

Re: your last submission, would it be the same pub as Strange Tales? Ahasuerus 01:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is; what threw me is that they don't list all the authors in the old one, and of course, the incomplete title. I pulled the new submission, and I'll fix up the old one. Bob 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Is the title "Under the Great Tiger" (two records) in this record actually a two-part serialization of a work of fiction? If so, each part should be titled "Under the Great Tiger (Part X of 2)" or if incomplete "Under the Great Tiger (Part X of ?)". Also, is the second part truly uncredited in this publication? I'll have to reject the current submission to make it into a variant, because both parts should be varianted to this record. Mhhutchins 04:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

They are two parts of the single story, originally serialized. The second part was uncredited in Smith's fanzine, although the few people who got copies knew who had written it since they were all buddies of Smith and Howard. I made the changes, but need to check for other copies once the changes submitted are approved. Bob 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Still, the question remains: Is the second part credited in this publication, regardless of whether it was uncredited in the original fanzine? I've gone ahead and varianted the two parts to the record for the whole story. Mhhutchins 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Not being clear again. This pub presents facsimiles of the original fanzine. So no credit. Bob 03:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

CLone of A Man-Eating Jeopard

The system would not allow me to accept the submission to clone this record, because you had merged its shortfiction content with another title record in a previous submission. You must wait until submissions affecting content title records have been accepted before making another submission which involves the same content title record. You'll have to make a new submission to clone the record for the second printing. Mhhutchins 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Midtown Trestler Special" or "The Midtown Downtown Special Trestler"?

Can you confirm the title given in this record? Mhhutchins 22:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the title on the cover is "The Midtown Downtown Special Trestler", but the title on the title page does not contain the word "Downtown"; in addition, the word "Downtown" is partially blocked by part of the cover illustration (now uploaded). Bob 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pieces by Sandra Garland in Dragonfields #3

I'm holding the submissions to merge the records into three different works. Just to confirm: are there only three different works by Garland, one which appears twice (pages 29 and 41), one appearing once (page 42) and the last appearing three times (pages 69, 87, and 97)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost. The first appears once, the second twice, the fourth once and the fifth three times. These are "end of the chapter" figures, and each is credited on the contents page. Bob 21:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not how the record looks currently. There are only six content records in total with three names (not five). I'll accept the submissions in the queue and let you go from there. Mhhutchins 23:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The submissions have been accepted. Because of the merge there are now only three records in the visible record. I'm not sure if the software knows how to display a content which appears twice in the same publication without some kind of disambiguation, e.g. "Dragonfields #3 [2-1]" would be the same artwork as "Dragonfield #3 [2-2]" but a separate unmerged record. (I personally see no reason to create separate records for such "spot" illustrations which apparently serve no purpose other than to fill space. They don't illustrate anything in particular.)
This has never come up before so I don't know how to fix it. Right now, it looks like the records should not have been merged. You'll have to bring this up on a community page to determine if the behaviour is a design flaw or not. Mhhutchins 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor credit for Strange Tales

Can you confirm the editor credit for this record is for Diane Howard or Diane M. Howard? If the former, we'll have to create a pseudonym and variant the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonym and variant made. Bob 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Verses vs. Versus

Unless the piece is about Conan's inner bard, perhaps "Verses" in Conan Verses the U. S. Postal System! should be "Versus" instead? --MartyD 10:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The error is the editors'; that's the way the title reads. I THINK they meant "versus", but I'm not really sure. The article is about a game played by mail (how dated is that?), so I don't really see how "versus" applies either. Bob 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)