User talk:Biomassbob/Archive/2013Jul-Sep

Necronomicon preface

I think that De Camp's Preface in Al Azif should probably be listed as SHORTFICTION. If you agree, you can also merge this variant title of the preface with this one which is already listed as fiction. I'll leave a note on the other verifier's page (for the merge) directing them here. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Ron. I'll do so. Bob 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On Fantasy

There is an existing series by this name (without the unnecessary disambiguation). I would have accepted your submissions to add these titles to a new series and then merged them, but we are unable to merge series. So each title will have to be entered into the existing series. Mhhutchins 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of going back through the rejects and adding the titles to the proper series. Mhhutchins 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I missed the series because it listed just Wagner's material, not Leiber's. When I searched for "On Fantasy", I specified Leiber as the author, so Wagner's essays didn't turn up. I'll add the other Leiber columns as I enter them in the data base or verify the Fantasy Newsletters or Reviews that contain them. Bob 23:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Williamson's The Worlds of Jack Williamson: A Centennial Tribute 1908-2008

I altered the title for Jack Williamson's The Worlds of Jack Williamson: A Centennial Tribute 1908-2008 removing the parentheses around the years in the title, since they don't appear on the title page. I've also expanded the notes to indicate the first edition and fixed the length of a couple of the contained novellas that were marked with a length of "na". Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge / Variant Candidates

The following are possible merge / variant candidates where you have verified publications containing both works:

Baal and Baal
The Blades of Hell and The Blades of Hell
Crazy Son and Crazy Son
An Echo from the Iron Harp and An Echo from the Iron Harp - Per the notes on the first and on The Gold and the Grey, the second should not be a variant to "The Gold and the Grey". If there are two different versions of "An Echo from the Iron Harp", then the notes need to be clarified.
Futility ("Golden goats on a hillside black . . .") and Futility ("Golden goats on a hillside black. . .")
A Spirit on the Wind and A Spirit on the Wind
Tars Tarkas and I and Tars Tarkas & I
Xeroxing the Necronomicon and Xeroxing the "Necronomicon"
Demon Wizard and Demon Wizard
The Frost King's Daughter and The Frost King's Daughter
The Mist and The Mist
The Rats in the Walls and The Rats in the Walls
The Road of the Eagles and The Road of the Eagles
Spanish Gold on Devil Horse and Spanish Gold on Devil-Horse

Would you please resolve these (merge, variant, or add notes about differences as applicable)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

All fixed. Thank you for catching these. Bob 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

de Camp's Dragon of the shtar Gate

Can you confirm that this publication is softcover? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Bob 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Interview: Charles L. Grant, Part II (Part 2 of 2)

Is this how the work is titled in the publication? Otherwise, the disambiguation is unnecessary. Mhhutchins 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, removed last such disambiguation. Bob 12:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Newsletter #44

A couple of content records in this are titled "Fantasy Newsletter No. 43". Mhhutchins 21:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lost track. Thanks! Fixed. Bob 12:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Newsletter #46

Perhaps a couple of typos in this record: page 6, "Tellur-Scope" for "Tellur-Scop"; page 7, typed as SHORTFICTION with an author credit the same as the title. Also, may I ask about the editorial: does the reference to Michael Bishop in the title mean that the piece is about him? If so, would it possible for you to scan the piece (at your convenience) and email it to me? Mhhutchins 15:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the typos. The editorial is really a sort of review of "Blooded on Arachne", a personal view by the editor of his response to the stories in this book. I'd be happy to send you a copy -- it's only one page -- what is you e-mail address? Bob 18:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've sent an email to your gmail address. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Neil Barrow or Barron

Can you confirm the author credit of this work? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is Barron. Fixed. Bob 23:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Eshbach story in The Garden of Fear and Other Stories of the Bizarre and Fantastic

I swapped out the story "The Man with the Hour Glass" by Lloyd Eshbach with a variant under his "L. A. Eshbach" pseudonym as it appears in The Garden of Fear and Other Stories of the Bizarre and Fantastic . I've also changed the binding to ph as it is staple bound. I'd assume you'd want to make similar changes to the publication records that you've verified, since I assume the only difference is the color of the cover stock. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All appearances of that story should be by "L. A. Eshbach". I made the change, and need to come back and make it a variant when the change goes through. Bob 14:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I rejected the title update in favor of a merge with the existing title under the pseudonym (see notes on the reject). You can now proceed with creating a variant. You can also change the pub format, unless the other two pubs are bound differently. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I made the variant and changed the pub formats as well. The problem with the format came from the original, which I did not create, but did clone to generate the third version. I didn't catch the error in format then. Sorry. Bob 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bittner letter to Howard, June 3, 1930

Some merging/varianting questions for you. On the Wayne Rogers page, I see three letters to Howard for June 3, 1930. Since they're all in pubs you have verified, can you confirm whether they're all the same and should be merged? Assuming that's the case, then I think once that merge has gone through, this one and this one should be merged (with each other). See what you think (don't do in advance of the other merge's acceptance, as they currently have different parents). Thanks. --MartyD 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

They are all the same. I really missed that one! Bob 14:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with reviews linking

I'm puzzled (and have been for awhile) that quite often the reviews you're entering into publications are not linking to the title record of the work under review, and wind up having to be linked manually. But this last set of pub updates seems to have narrowed down the problem. Look at this publication record, and you'll notice that every review that didn't automatically link has a non-letter character in it, either a colon, a question mark, or an apostrophe.

So I did a test and updated the record with a review that contained the exact same data that you provided, and you can see that my test review linked automatically. This result seems to point to a problem with the way your non-letter characters are entered into the submission form and how the system is interpreting them. Do you have a standard keyboard? Or do you enter these characters using some method other than a keystroke? I know this sounds strange but I can't figure out any other reason why the system is misinterpreting these characters. Before you manually link the records, I'm going to ask Ahasuerus to get into the discussion. He knows much more about the software than I. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the reason why the Spinrad review didn't link. There's a missing space between words in the title. That leaves the colon and question mark as the remaining characters that aren't matching. 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The same situation in this record. There's no reason I can think of why the Elfquest book didn't match and link, except for that colon. (The title of the Grant novel has an extra word, so that would explain why it didn't link.) Mhhutchins 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael, I will review the code later today. Ahasuerus 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the cases have been my errors in entering the titles. Sometimes the mistakes in the titles are my fault, sometimes they were inherent in the review. I can recall only one before the last two issues that I couldn't find an error in, and that one might have been a space problem. I've noticed in the past that sometimes a colon throws things off; I always use two spaces after a colon, and some people use only one space. Bob 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be the problem. The system is reading those two spaces and unable to find an EXACT match which is required for it to link to the title. It is standard to only have one space after a colon. Mhhutchins 22:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Standard? It was pounded into me, both in English classes and in typing class, to use two spaces, like after a period. Bob 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I never had typing so my thinking was an assumption. I should have said it's standard on the ISFDB to only enter one space between words, regardless of the last character of a word. Mhhutchins 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm holding the submissions to link the reviews until Ahasuerus is able to look at the software to determine why they didn't link automatically. They'll eventually be accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Two spaces after a colon would certainly defeat the exact match logic. Let's see if we still have this issue once Bob has stopped using multiple spaces. Ahasuerus 02:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Two spaces after a period or a colon was the standard in the days of mono-spaced typewritten text. It has been replaced by a one space standard in computer typography. (Speaking here as someone who took typing classes in the 1960's, and was a newspaper editor in the 1970's). Chavey 11:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Most interesting. My typing class was back in 1955 on manual typewriters, really old-school. I was told the double space was to show the longer pause after a colon (as compared to the single space after a semi-colon). I will try to adapt to the new typography (old habits are hard to break), although the reason for the change is not obvious to me. Bob 16:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The obvious reason for the change is that all publication titles entered into the database with a colon only have a single space. The system is designed to match and link EXACT titles when review records are created. The extra space is a character that will not match up with the existing records. Or you can continue to link them manually. Mhhutchins 19:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael, that's not the point I was making to Chavey. He noted that the colon used to require two spaces after it, but that one space became a standard after computers came along. Not just in the ISFDB, but in general use. I was taught that the original reason for two spaces was to emphasize the pause the colon represented, changing to a single space does not have a similar justification. I suspect that the change was made by people ignorant of the original two space rationale, but perhaps the change was just for simplification. I am sure the ISFDB basis was adopted from the wider updated standard practice. But I was completely unaware of the change in standard practice until Chavey enlightened me. Bob 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Bob, there were a couple of reasons for the change in typographic rules. The most important reason was that a non mono-spaced period was so much narrower than a typewriter, or mono-spaced, period. So we get the same increased emphasis on the end of a sentence just by putting in a single space. In other words, by decreasing the space given to the period, we don't need to artificially increase the space given to the blank. This change happened somewhat gradually during the 1980's, so younger typists do it naturally, but folks like you and I have to consciously work on changing our old habits. And of course the ISFDB, having developed after the newer standards were well in place, has always used those standards here -- which of course is Michael's point. Chavey 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Auro: Lord of Jupiter

Would it be a safe assumption that the short story version of "Auro: Lord of Jupiter" doesn't exist and that it was left over after you finished cleaning up your verified Heroic Fantasy #1, February 1984, which includes an eponymous INTERIORART record? Ahasuerus 02:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the short story should be deleted (submitted). It's a graphic item. Bob 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Newsletter #60

Can you confirm whether the note in this record is correct in giving the author's name as "Whitley Scott"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Michael. Bob 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing data in the record

Please add the source for the note you added to this record concerning the number of copies and binding. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Simak's The Creator

I'm holding your submission to add a publication for this title. Can you look at this existing record to see if perhaps it could be the same? The difference is the price ($0.25 vs. $0.50) and a cover art credit (there is no cover art on the existing record.) Otherwise, they're pretty much the same. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll drop it. I missed finding it before, not sure why. Bob 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You probably looked under Novels on Simak's page. It's shortfiction, so the book publication would be under Chapterbooks. The best way to find a publication record is to go to Advanced Search, go down to the third (last) section (ISFDB Publication Search Form) and enter the title in the first field. Adding the author's last name in the next field (and changing the drop-down menu to Author) will narrow the results. Mhhutchins 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I did, and came up blank. Again, not sure why. Must have mistyped something. Bob 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Crank Bitches column in FR

Can you confirm the author credit "Leat Braff" in this record? Other columns in this series were credited to either "Lea Braff" or "Lea C. Braff". Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

:It's Lea of course.  Fixed. Bob 18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Time-Travel[l]ing with H. P. Lovecraft

Could you double check the spelling of the Bloch essay in this book? If it is misspelled, we can merge it with this title. Otherwise, we should make one the variant of the other. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The title as shown is correct. The item is a facsimile of Bloch's typescript, with x'ed out words and some typed-in word substitutions, so clearly "Traveling" is the way Bloch spelled the word. Bob 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling is not my strong suit and I hadn't realized until looking it up, that both spellings are correct, though the double l version is more common in British usage. Anyway, I've made the variant. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unnumbered pages

Re this record: Unnumbered pages should be bracketed in both the page count field and the content page field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. It's been so long since I did this, I just forgot. Bob 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Review #64

About the editor credit in this publication: is there a credit for the reviews editor? Because this became essentially a reviewzine in its last incarnation, I chose to credit the reviews editor and Collins in the editor fields of the records I verified. Neil Barron was the first and others followed. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Michael. No Review Editor is listed, and Barron's name is nowhere in the pub that I could find. The individual reviewers are credited on the TOC. Barron is listed as reviews editor in the next issue. This issue (#64) contains a limited number of reviews, but the February issue (#65) is half reviews; having Barron listed as an editor as long as the review section is that prominent is fine. If the review section falls to less than 1/4 of the zine, I would probably not want to credit him at the same level as Collins. Bob 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If he's not credited in the issue, even if the issue is more reviews than anything else, he shouldn't be credited in the record. I knew it was at this point that the magazine's mission substantially changed. I just didn't know with which issue it started. Now we know it's with #65. Thanks for the clarification. Mhhutchins 22:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mrs. December" by Chet Gottfreid

Could you please check if "Mrs. December" in your verified Grantville Gazette VI is credited to Chet Gottfreid rather than Chet Gottfried (i.e. "ei" rather than "ie")? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gottfried is correct. Fixed. Thank you! Bob 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Our Lady of Darkness

Hello, Bob! I found that you verified three publications: two of this magazine and this lovely item. Since I'm interested in the artwork by John Stewart, could you please take a look if the cover for the Centipede Press edition was perhaps featured before in the magazine (and if there's some more overlap for the interior art)? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 12:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, Christian. The frontispiece does not appear in the hardcover version of Whispers, since the fanzine cover is missing in the hardcover. I fixed that; thanks! But the frontispiece from Whispers does indeed appear in the Centipede Press book, not on the cover, but appears on p. 6 opposite the "Introduction" start and after the last page of the text on the page with colophon and editor's signature (the latter page actually has two appearances of the illustration, a smaller "normal" version, backed by a full-page "background" version in light gray. Part of it also appears (in mirror image) on pp. 10-11 and on pp. 112-113 (at the beginning of chapter 13). A negative version of the illustration also appears on p.12. The cover illustration appears at several places in the text as well. The pub is lavishly illustrated indeed! Bob 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Tide

Can you confirm that an ISBN-13 is printed in this 2001 publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed, Michael, but it's a 1997 pub. Bob 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean 2007? I've just accepted the submission to change the date from 2001 to 2007. If this is correct you'll have to change the title record also. Mhhutchins 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't even get my corrections right. Yeah, 2007. I'm living in the last century, obviously. Bob 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Artist credit on It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy

Prof beard proposes adding an artist credit of "Richard Weaver" to your verified It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy. The submission doesn't include any information as to the source of the credit. Does that change sound ok to you? I have it on hold for the moment. Thanks. --MartyD 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to notify the change - I'm new here and am still learning. I got the artist credit from my copy of the publication. Prof beard 13:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, Marty. The front jacket flap gives "Jacket design by Richard Weaver", so I suppose he is the likely artist (although I always wonder when a "designer" is given rather than crediting an illustrator or artist). I've uploaded a new jacket scan since it's a wrap-around. Bob 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks folks. All set. --MartyD 23:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Review, September 1985

I have a submission to update this issue, but there is no change in the record. Do you remember what you were trying to update? Mhhutchins 21:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

All I changed was the cover scan. Some of these Fantasy Reviews that have white borders don't pick those borders up, but narrow the scan to the width of the illustration only. When I catch those, I rescan with narrow black borders which keeps the entire pub picture. I realize I didn't need to do an update; just another screw up. Sorry. Bob 23:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you updated the cover image file, it retains the same URL, so there is no need to update the publication record (you must have entered the same URL which was already there, that's why I could see no change made to the record.) You only have to update the publication record, if you upload a new file without replacing the old one, and has a different URL. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)