User talk:Rtrace/Archive7

From ISFDB
< User talk:Rtrace
Revision as of 12:22, 16 June 2015 by Herzbube (talk | contribs) (→‎The Repossession of Jerry Cornelius: done)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Cats of Tanglewood Forest

I see you verified this pub. I'm looking for the page with the Vess drawing "I Didn't Know She Was a Bottle Witch", which is a picture of a tree with a bunch of bottles hanging from it with a small cat in the foreground. The drawing appears in Spectrum 20, and I'd like to reference the page. Bob 02:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the two page spread on pages 66 and 67. There is some whitespace on 67 with text in it. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks, Ron. Bob 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange Ports of Call

I submitted an edit to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?33526 per note I added to http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Rtrace/Changes_to_Verified_Pubs. However, per http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Markwood User:Mhhutchins is holding the edit pending your verification because I also changed the price to $4.00, adding a note explaining this is the price printed on the dust jacket but the book is often found price-clipped with $3.75 stamped on top front flap. Please let us know if this edit is OK with you. Markwood 01:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page since that is likely where Michael is watching the conversation. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Illustrated Wee Free Men

You verified this pub, one of three versions in the data base. I don't understand why the three versions are not merged, but that's really not my question. Spectrum 16 has an illustration titled "Drome Attack" showing the drome attacking Tiffany (I presume) and a number of the Wee Free Men attacking the drome. Can you tell me what page that illustration appears on? Bob 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't say about the US editions. They vary by a month and could potentially be two printings, but I doubt it. My copy is the UK edition and should not be merged with either of the other two. The illustration could be the one on pages 144 and 145, but without seeing it in your book, I couldn't say for certain. The novel is lavishly illustrated and the illustrations are not captioned. It's been years since I've read it (the unillustrated edition) and I have no memory of what a "Drome" is supposed to look like. I'm also not certain that matching an illustration to a page number is particularly useful. Since the US edition(s) have a different page count and if the dates are correct, predate the UK edition, the page number may not match the page number of the first appearance of the illustration. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I can understand not merging the cover art, but I would have thought that merging the pubs would be obvious. Thanks for the info. Bob 17:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
We never merge different printings of the same title. Each gets its own publication record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Art of Imagination duplicate entries

There are two pieces in this record which are coming up on a error script showing that they each appear twice in the publication. The first, Skullface and Others (cover), appears on pages 368 and 563. The other, Weird Tales, April 1933 (cover), appears on pages 338 and 572. You can't see the second appearance in the display of the record because the software can't show two works that have been merged as one but appear in a publication twice. Are these duplicates actually identical, or are they sufficiently different that you could disambiguate them so that each appearance is displayed in the record? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the issue with repeated titles within a collection and I generally append a "[2]" to the second appearance in these situations and then variant back to the original title. I was wondering if someone had merged the two variants causing this situation. However, I suppose its possible that I missed these ones. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

10 digit is on the copyright page (verso of the title page). 13 digit is on the back jacket and slipcase (above the bar code). I don't think we have a policy, but I would assume that the copyright page trumps the others. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind, please note that unusual situation in the Note field of the record. The publication will continue to show up on the clean-up script, but at least there'll be a note to explain the reason why an ISBN-10 appears in a 2010 publication record, and no on will need to ask you again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. The copyright page has 10 digit ISBNs for all three editions and I've updated the unverified edition as well. If you don't get a response about the other verified edition, I can make a similar update there. Presumably, all three are the same print run with different bindings, or some added content. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you. I've found another one that's missing the ISBN-13, I think because it's a POD of a 1997 edition but without updating the ISBN. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That's probably correct. There is a bar code on that page, as well as the back cover which has the 13 digits of the longer ISBN under the bar code (the numbers only: "9 781880 448533"). Above the bar code, on the back cover only, the 10 digit number appears with the label ("ISBN 1-880448-53-X"). I added a note before I noticed the longer ISBN in the bar code. I'm not sure if we should consider the longer number or not. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That 13-digit number was the EAN, which was the basis for what eventually became the ISBN-13. If it doesn't specify "ISBN" above the barcode, it's best not to use it as one. There are tons of books published in the 90s with a EAN-encoded barcode on the back of the book. I'd hate editors to start entering them as ISBN-13s. Thanks again for checking. Mhhutchins 03:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Iguanacon Program Book

Do you know if the editor (and author of the essay on Ellison) in this publication is the same as William_H._Patterson,_Jr.? "Bill Patterson" is now entered as one of his pseudonyms. If it's not the same person, he would have to be disambiguated (such as "Bill Patterson (II)", since there's already a "Bill Patterson (I)"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing in the program book. It took a bit of digging, but I found this page which identified the author of the Heinlein book as being involved with Iguanacon, so I've made the variant. It was a fun bit of detective work. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Lasher", by Anne Rice

I added a month of publication to you verified copy of this book, from the back dj flap, along with a couple of minor notes. Chavey 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Book of the Dead: Friends of Yesteryear: Fictioneers & Others

Ron, there is an item on p. 70 of Book of the Dead that is variented to "A Memory of Robert E. Howard". That is incorrect. It is actually an entirely different essay, an expanded version of Long Ago, an essay that first appeared in Amra V2n63, p. 5. As far as I know, it appears nowhere else. One of us should cancel the varient and add a note referring to the Amra article. Please let me know if you want me to do this.

In addition, you verified Skull-Face and Others, which contains another Hoffmann essay on Howard that is merged with 4 others. I have added to the notes of this title, "A Memory of R.E. Howard". Bob 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who contacted Bob about this (see discussion on his page). "A Memory of Robert E. Howard" doesn't actually exist (not to be confused with "A Memory of R. E. Howard," which does and is different). Your variant is what is correct. I just changed Bob's notes to "A Memory of R. E. Howard." Lee 21:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The parent title for the article in Book of the Dead (BOD) is given that way in Locus1 and also in Peter Ruber's introduction (see page xx). I believe Ruber was was confusing it with the essay in Skull-Face and Others (SF&O) which he further states is the same essay in a revised and "censored" (Price's words") version. Locus1 indicates the essay first appeared in The Ghost and Ruber's comments certainly suggest as much. I've added a record for the May 1945 issue of The Ghost using Miller/Contento as the source which gives the title of the original essay as simply "Robert E. Howard" and I've used that as the parent title for the essay in BOD. I'm going to reject the edit to merge the previous parent title with the essay in SF&O (I'll reissue the other part of the merge). If we all agree that the essays are similar enough to be variants, then we should use the original title in The Ghost as the parent. However, I'm not certain that the two versions are similar enough and this may be something better handled in the notes. What do you both think? I don't know how the essay in Amra fits in. Unfortunately, Amra isn't in Miller/Contento at all and that issue is not covered in FictionMags, so I don't have any information as to whether it is a reprint of the essay in The Ghost. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added words to the notes for A Memory of R. E. Howard and Robert Ervin Howard; I need to add further to the notes for the latter to indicate where the first printing of that essay was (Diablerie #4 edited by Willie Watson, May 1944). I do not have copies of Ghost or Skull-Face Omnibus, Volume 1, but I do have copies of all the other appearances of the Howard essays by Price. But the Ghost article is reprinted in West Is West & Others. That article is titled "Robert Ervin Howard", if we take "The Book of the Dead" and "Chapter 2" out as you have. That article contains 9 sections in addition to "Robert E. Howard", the third section. Lee has copies of all of the publications, including Ghost #3, and should review your entry of that pub and correct any errors he finds. I don't know if he has Diablerie #4, but if so, I hope he will enter that pub as well. Now about the The Book of the Dead: Friends of Yesteryear. . . essay, it does appear to be based on the Amra article, using the same form; the Amra article appears to have been written in preparation for the book. I'm sure Price pulled additional material out of his original essay, but the form is entirely different and there is additional material. I am not comfortable calling it a variant of the original; notes should credit the Amra article and much more circumspectly, the Ghost essay. Bob 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thieves' World maps

Are there maps by Jim Odbert in your copy of the the second printing of this publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Two maps on page vi-vii and viii-ix. They are not credited on the copyright page, nor are they signed. I have 9 books in the series and they all have the same maps (1 volume only has one of the 2), but they are only credited in the 2nd and 3rd volumes. I'll go through my copies and add them in soon. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Fountains of Paradise

I've replaced the Amazon cover image for your verified pub with a scan – the Amazon image cropped a whole centimetre off the top and half a centimetre off the left-hand side. While I was there, I noticed that the contents for your 4th printing differ somewhat from my 1st printing: counting back from the numbered pages, my pub has a "Foreword" on page 11, whereas yours has a "Preface" on page 13, and in my pub the novel starts on page 13 with Part 1, 'The Palace'. Other printings also follow your numbering, possibly after cloning from your pub, which may make them incorrect also. Could you take a look? Thanks. PeteYoung 16:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of mine matches yours and I'm fairly certain the other printings would as well. I likely cloned mine from an incorrect version. I've made the corrections for mine. We may want to go ahead and merge the incorrect preface with the foreword. It seems that the other person with a verified copy hasn't posted since September, so I don't know if we could get them to verify. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A Surfeit of Melancholic Humors

Hello, can you have look to see that if, for Farber's text in this publication, Humors is spelled "Humors" or "Humours" (the canonical titles was with "Humours" but that was wrong).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hauck (talkcontribs) 06:25, 16 February 2014.

It is "Humours" on the title page (and TOC, copyright and back jacket). It looks like you changed the canonical title from "Humours" to "Humors" and also for the associated artwork (I'd like to think I didn't miss this in my copy). The unverified third appearance of the story is listed as "Humours" in Locus1 and your note on Michael's talk page indicates that the toc of the original magazine has it as "Humours". Since the title page of the original magazine appearance is the only place where it is spelled "Humors", I'm guessing that it is a misprint and that perhaps the canonical title should be "Humours" with the original appearance as the variant. I'll direct Michael here as well to see what you both think.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't really mind which one is chosen as canonical, but, for a text published in an american magazine, "Humor" seemed more logical to me (but I'm neither american nor english). Hauck 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hauck. And besides, the canonical title is more often than not that of its first appearance, even if it's an alternate spelling (it's not really a misspelling). We can't guess what the author's preferred spelling is until it's included in a single-author collection. Mhhutchins 18:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Well either the table of contents or the title page misprinted the title. I just find it hard to believe that the mistake was perpetuated through all of the reprints including a copyright statement. However, I won't insist. I'm going to change the canonical titles back then add a new titles to your magazine and then delete and variant which is how the original edits should have been done to have avoided changing the title in the other publications. I'll also re-date the former canonical title to the first appearance with the extra u. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird Tales Jan-Feb 2006

Does this 2010 reprint have an ISBN-13 anywhere on it? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, which is why I added the note. It may have been a little ambiguous, so I'll add "only" to it. There is one other of these reprints that I added tonight that has the same issue. I'll clarify the note there as well. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Adversary

Hi. Can I please ask you to check the page count in this record? I think it should be 470+[7] rather than simply 470 to include the maps. Thanks. --AliHarlow 10:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That standard is fairly new, but it appears to apply here. I'll make the change.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Green Lama

I see that you have verified Robert Weinberg's The Green Lama (1976). Could you please clarify whether "Dumont, Jethro" is an in-universe essay and, if so, are there any indications when it was originally published?

Also, it occurs to me that we should probably list all of this character's adventures since his "Buddhist training" enabled him to do things that are clearly SFnal. Later on he became a regular comic book superhero (flight, super-strength, etc), but even in his original pulp incarnation in 1940-1943 he could "become radioactive". Wikipedia has a list of the stories and Will Murray's introductions to the recently published "The Green Lama: The Complete Pulp Adventures" (e.g. Volume 1 -- see Look Inside) are informative. Would you be interested in tackling this mini-project? Ahasuerus 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Dumont, Jethro" is a fictional biography of the character and appears to be original to the collection. At least it has a 1976 copyright by Crossen. I'll happily to take on the project of entering the additional stories. Though I have about a dozen issues of Weird tales that I'm doing a second pass on. I'll take a look when I complete that. Thanks for suggesting it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

House of the Hatchet

Hello. I'm holding my own copy of Robert Bloch's House of the Hatchet, and wondering if it is actually the same edition as the one recorded here :

  • I can find no trace of Oct 1976, just “Published in 1976” on p. 4.
  • ISBN doesn't start with 0-, just 586….
  • I can't decide whether the top right-hand corner of the cover has been torn off, or if the white bit is part of the picture (in which case, I've got a variant cover; otherwise, a better one).

The rest of the data is identical. Thanks for checking if you've got the time for it. Linguist 09:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

We've got the same copy. The notes state that the month of publication is from Amazon UK. The fifth bullet under ISBN/Catalog # in this section of the new publication help indicates that a leading 0 should be added when it is missing in a 10 digit ISBN. The missing corner is not part of the picture. I would have replaced it myself, but my copy has a visible fold line and other small scuffs. Feel free to replace the existing scan with your own. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer ! Linguist 13:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

Remembering Derleth

I varianted the piece by "Hunt" in this publication to Roy Hunt. Can it be assumed that "Derleth" in this publication is August Derleth? If so a pseudonym and variants should be created. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the two Roy Hunt titles. It is signed "Hunt". There is no caption. It does appear to be the same style as his other work. I had meant to variant the titles credited simply as "Derleth" when I entered them. I should probably keep notes as I enter books with a large number of content items. I do sometimes throw a bookmark in pages that require additional attention. I'm still entering the content on this one and I'd like to think I would have caught these before I was done. I probably would have missed them though. Thanks for pointing them out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Snow-Image, and Other Twice-Told Tales", by Nathaniel Hawthorne

I added a cover image, month of publication, and one note to your verification (from an online scanned version) of this publication. The link I used for this information was from a current auction at PBA Galleries. Chavey 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Remembering Derleth

Are there two different poems with the same name on pag 45 of this publication? If so, one should be disambiguated to avoid merging. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should have done that when I first entered them. I think we're appending first lines these days, so that's how I disambiguated them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks great and a fine form of disambiguation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Conan publication series?

This publication series redefines the definition. How can the books from a title series published by three different publishers all be merged into one publication series? If these books were gong to be placed into a publication series, shouldn't each publisher have their own? For example Volume Two of Lancer's publication series should be #2 and not #7, just as Volume Three shouldn't be #9. (This could be mightily confusing to most users of the database, as it is for me, a veteran!) If Lancer's numbering differs from other publishers, well, isn't that one of the purposes of publication series, to distinguish one publisher's numbering of a series from another's? Perhaps there should have been a discussion among the primary verifiers of the publication records before the creation of this series. Mhhutchins 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This stemmed from a discussion on Bob's talk page. I do actually believe this is more appropriately a publication series rather than a title series. The problem is that there is at least one novel in the series where the position depends on who is publishing the series. Conan the Conqueror (vt The Hour of the Dragon) is either #5 when published by Gnome Press, #1 when published by Berkley, #11 when published by Grant or #3 or #5 when published by Lancer and #9 when published by Ace. My understanding of the De Camp edited version of the stories is that it was originally published by Lancer which went out of business before the series was complete. Ace published the completion of the series and reprinted the earlier volumes originally published by Lancer. Wikipedia also states that Lancer originally numbered their series in publication order and later switched to a chronological numbering. That would explain why volume 2 became volume 7 and volume 3 became volume 5 and ultimately volume 9. The ultimate numbering that Ace used after the last volume was published appears to be the agreed upon order for these particular editions and is used in that Wikipedia article, the Reginald references. Both the Clute encyclopedias also suggest this ordering except that Clute/Grant sets Conan of Aquilonia apart. I felt comfortable that these books were one pub series that spanned two publishers and set out to do the conversion. It was then I discovered the Sphere printings. Since Sphere appeared to have published all of these books, I assumed that they had the UK rights to publishing the series. I also assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Sphere books would maintain the same ordering. I did notify active verifiers that I was making these changes. Perhaps it would have been better to have generated more discussion first. Certainly, verifiers of the Sphere editions could let us know if the same numbering of the Lancer/Ace editions is used. It also appears that pub series have notes and I can certainly note the reason for the change in numbering and we could certainly note the actual number in the notes of each publication where it differs from the series numbering. I'll also invite the other verifiers here to chime in. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to have a separate publication series for the Sphere editions, even though the contents are the same. The Sphere numbering (stated on the backcovers) is:
1 Conan the Adventurer
2 Conan the Warrior
3 Conan
4 Conan the Conqueror
5 Conan the Freebooter
6 Conan of Cimmeria
7 Conan the Usurper
8 Conan the Wanderer
9 Conan of the Isles
10 Conan the Avenger
11 Conan the Buccaneer
Sorry, couldn't respond sooner. --Willem H. 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly my concern as well, Willem. Each publisher's output should be entered into a separate publication series because each of them handled the title series differently. Mhhutchins 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries about response time. It appears that my assumption about the Sphere publications is clearly wrong. I'll go ahead and move them to their own pub series and rename the other series. Based on this page, it appears that Conan of Aquilonia should be number 12. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I really like the way you've handled the changes. I find the numbers much less important than grouping the publications as you have; the numbers are given for those who would like to see them. The only way I see to satisfy everyone is to allow multiple copies of the pubs in the database, and that isn't a very appealing idea. Bob 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Creating a publication series that combines the publications from different publishers of the same titles subverts the ISFDB definition and does more harm than good. The points you (Ron) raise make it perfectly clear why each publisher's output should have its own publication series. Bob, many of the numbers in this "publication series" don't match those published on the actual books. How confusing would that be to database users, new or old? Mhhutchins 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it was a mistake to include the Sphere printings and I am fixing that. For Lancer and Ace, the help page for pub series states "Although it is uncommon, a Publication Series may be shared across publishers, e.g. if the original publisher drops it or goes out of business and it is later picked up by another publisher." which is precisely the situation we're talking about. However, I do agree with Michael's observation that it is confusing to have pub series numbers that vary from what is on the book. (I actually didn't realize that the numbers differed until it was brought up in this discussion). The problem is not only that Ace adjust the numbers when they took over the series, but Lancer itself used at least 2 different numbering schemes. I'm not sure of the best way to handle it.
  1. We could either create separate series for each numbering scheme. The main disadvantage there is that we may not be able to determine what number should be applied to unverified publications. We'd also need at least 3 series for the Lancer printings alone (Conqueror 3 became 5, Adventurer 1 became 5).
  2. Another approach is to have a single series and always reflect the number on the book. The disadvantage there would be that different titles will share the same number which would be alleviated segregating the Ace printings to their own series.
  3. Finally, we could have one series with an agreed upon canonical numbering and reflect all known variances in number through notes in the publication and the pub series. The disadvantage with this approach is the confusion Michael mentioned.
Do folks have a preference on how to handle these? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on my previous comments, it's obvious I'd go with the first choice. If we don't know which number is given in the printings with unverified records, it's perfectly normal not to enter the number in the record's publication series number field. That's done all the time. After all, publication series are based on publication data as entered into publication records. If a publication record is incomplete because it is unverified, there is no need for it to be numbered the same as verified records. The problems you give for the second and third choices were the reasons why I brought up the issue at all. Thanks for listening to my concerns. I'm still open to what others may feel about the last two approaches to the situation. Mhhutchins 22:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) I've gone over all the Lancer copies for which we have records including my own copies. Lancer acknowledges two separate numbering schemes and in at least 2 examples ([1] and [2]) listing both schemes and their positions on the title page.

The first 5 volumes that lancer published (1966-1968) listed the number (order of publication, or PO) on the front cover and referred to the series as "The Complete Conan".
Beginning with the sixth book (1968), this numbering was suspended and no explicit number appeared on the book for newly published books. Reprints of the first 5 volumes continued to appear with their PO volume number. Lancer also began listing the books in their internal chronology (IC) order on the page facing the title page. They included placeholders for books that had not been published and where the title was yet to be decided. This chronological ordering is consistent whenever it appears and matches the ultimate ordering when the series was eventually completed by Ace when it published the final volume that had previously been announced by Lancer. Further, when this chronology was first presented, it included the 5 volumes that Lancer had previously published in their IC order.
Lancer began adding the IC number to the front covers as early as 1970. However, they were not consistent about which numbering they put on the book and published volumes with the number in the PO appeared as late as 1973. To further confuse matters, they published books with a numbering that matches neither PO nor IC. I can't determine what the reason for this. It does not match the IC renumbered with the forthcoming titles removed. This third numbering appeared between 1970 and 1973 and accounts for the reason that 3 titles bear the number 5 ([3], [4] & [5])

Personally, I'd place all Lancer Conans in the IC numbering pub series since Lancer did retroactively count the first 5 published volumes as part of this ordering as presented facing the title page of the 1968 publication of Conan the Avenger and in subsequent publications. I'd also include the Ace publications since they completed the series as originally announced by Lancer. However, I can place those pubs that reflect their PO numbering only in a new publication series: "Conan (Lancer - publication order)". Since we cannot add more than 1 series, I would favor the IC series for those volumes that reflect both numbering. I have no idea what to do with the outliers. We could create a third pub series: "Conan (Lancer - unknown order)", but it would only have a volume 5 (Conqueror) and 6 (Isles). I had hoped that some of the other verifiers would have chimed in. I'll give it a little longer. I'm going to be distracted for the next several days as I'm getting married on Saturday. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club", by Charles Dickens

I added a title page image, some interior art entries, note #5, and additions to notes #2 and #4 to your verified edition of this publication. Chavey 16:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been many years since I read this but can't recall any fantasy element at all. Does it belong in the database? Mhhutchins 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Bleiler included it in The Guide to Supernatural Fiction on the basis of 4 stories included in the novel which have supernatural elements, which is in the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there are title records for those excerpted stories, I don't see why there should be a record for the novel itself in the database. Shouldn't a note in each of the title records be sufficient? I'll let it go, but can foresee other editors adding hundreds of records for other editions of this novel. Mhhutchins 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Science-Fantasy Publishers: A Bibliographic History 1923-1998 Electronic Edition

This verified publication record of yours states the publication date as 1998-00-00, however, I believe this to be later based on published advertising on Chalker's website which claims: "COMPLETELY REVISED AND UPDATED THROUGH March, 1999!". Perhaps you could look into this. Thanks. Uzume 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The "title page" definitely has a 1998 date just above the publisher's name and the copyright is also 1998. I believe that Chalker incorporated the annual supplements into the larger work each year. Perhaps that advertisement is for the subsequent year to my copy. Although, mine includes the same six supplements mentioned in the ad, which takes the date through June 1998. Supplement 7 goes through June 1999, so it wouldn't have been included in a March 1999 edition. Feel free to add a note if you'd like. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Contact changes

Mike Christie submitted a duplicate of your verified Contact. I moved his note about Canada price, his new Author's Note content, and his supplied page numbers to your entry. --MartyD 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Triptych of Terror", by Curlovich, et. al.

Could you check the publisher on your verified publication? It currently says "Alyson Books", on this 2006 book, but the Wikipedia page for Alyson Books says they didn't start using that name until 2008. Chavey 00:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found some WorldCat records that take "Alyson Books" back to at least 2003, so the Wikipedia page seems to be in error. Chavey 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry Gade

I recently added the facsimile reprint of Amazing Stories, February 1942 and I listed the piece by Henry Gade as a piece of short fiction. This piece, A City on Ganymede, fits the rules for being a fiction, and I have been asked to ask other editors who have listed pieces in this series by this author if these are articles or fictions. I suspect that they should be judged on piece by piece basis. If you think that this is worth discussing, please drop me a note on the "My Messages" page. MLB 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Flotsam Fantastique

Is this interview credited to "Jason V. Brock" or "Jason V Brock" (the canonical form of the author's name)? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The punctuation mark is present. I've made the variant. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Shadow

Hi, would you agree that The Walking Shadow forms part of the 'Masters of Science Fiction' series?--Dirk P Broer 18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I think this record probably predates the publication series feature which is why it was missing. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Master Key Artwork

In your verified The Master Key, the interior artwork is dated 1974, but the publication is dated 1901. I would think the artwork should be 1901 also. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I suspect it picked up the 1974 date from either a clone or a merge with the 1974 printing. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Letter in Amazing, August 1934

Can you confirm the author of this letter is credited as "Olon" and not "Olin"? If the former, it should be made into a variant. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I had intended to go back an make the variant, but clearly I forgot. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird Tales, Oct-Nov 2006

Can you confirm that the author of the story on page 5 of this issue is credited as "Kelly McCollough"? (We also have a Kelly McCullough. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Title page and table of contents both have the name as shown. However, there is a one paragraph bio at the end of the story with the name spelled correctly and making it clear that he is the same author. I'll note it and build the pseudonym. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Count Brass

Hi. Can I ask you to check the "other prices" in this record please? It matches a copy that I have of that book except for that. Should the prices be correct as stated, I will create a new record. Many thanks. --AliHarlow 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The prices match mine. However, I discovered a reprinting statement indicating that mine is the second printing. I don't recall if I was the one who added the prices when I verified the record back in 2009. I can see that I left a note on Bill's page, but unfortunately, that history has been deleted. I would assume that the prices are from my edition and were added in error. Since the secondary verifications all refer to the first printing, I'll remove my verification and the prices. If yours is a first printing, then you should update this record with the correct prices. It looks like we've already got a record for the second printing, so I'll move my verification there. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'll see if Mhhutchins can pull my prices out of my submission, otherwise adding the correct "other" prices will have to wait until I'm next up in Copeland. --AliHarlow 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll do that and then reject the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. --AliHarlow 19:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Cabellian Harmonics"

Is this a work of fiction? It is typed as a SERIAL in this publication which you primary verified. If it is nonfiction, it should be entered as ESSAY. The SERIAL type is reserved for works of fiction that would otherwise be typed as NOVEL or SHORTFICTION. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I didn't understand that back in 2009 when I entered this and it isn't even entered in the proper form for a SERIAL. It would take me a while to find my copy of this. However, I was able to find an online scan of the full work and it is clearly nonfiction. I'll change this to an ESSAY. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Billy Bounce"

A little research shows that this is a comic strip, but it's entered into this record as a SERIAL. Ordinarily, a SERIAL-typed title record appears only in a periodical publication, not a book publication. If it forms one continuous story, each part should be varianted to a single SHORTFICTION record. If each piece is a separate story, then each should be typed as SHORTFICTION. (The five pieces show up on a clean-up script which finds SERIALS which aren't varianted to either a NOVEL or SHORTFICTION record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that this is a comic strip. However, the text is significant and appears entirely below the illustrations (i.e. no speech or thought balloons) and the story could stand on its own without the artwork. This is one narrative across the several parts and each is printed here as a facsimile of its original newspaper appearance. I'll make a parent title. I also noticed that last installment reprinted here has a "to be continued", so I'm going to change the total number of parts to "?" as well. I would guess that it never got above part 8 since the next Billy Bounce story reprinted here is dated 4 weeks after the part 5 and is no longer titled "A Fairy Tale". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The point wasn't whether or not it was a comic strip. It was the fact that it's a five part SERIAL published in a single publication, which strains the definition of SERIAL to the point of breaking. If you were creating publication records for each of the original publications in which they appeared individually, it would be understandable to type each part as a SERIAL. If they form one continuous story and are published together in a single publication, then a single SHORTFICTION content record should suffice, and the individual works which were published separately could then be varianted to that single SHORTFICTION record. In any case, it's no longer on the clean-up script. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
While in this case, I think it is more important that the story is incomplete in this book and I'm not sure how else to reflect that. Even if it were complete, this book clearly presents them individually as separate items rather than one continuous narrative. Even if it were to reprint all the installments, I would argue that how they are presented (with title pages or in the table of contents) would drive whether there should be several SERIALs or a single SHORTFICTION or NOVEL. However, I can also see your point and would want to see what other editors had to say as well. I can't think of an example where this has occurred, so this may not be an issue that we need to address yet. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's so rare that there need not be a discussion to solve a situation which barely exists. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the story by Schimel

...on page 95 of this publication correctly entered as published? (We have a record for "Snowman".) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it is a typo, since it is "Snowman" in the table of contents. I made it a variant of the 2004 story. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Damon Knight's Double Meaning

I'm trying to figure out if this work contains Double Meaning (the novella) or The Rithian Terror (the novel expansion). From Amazon's page count, it seems like it would be the expansion, but not sure how reliable their ebook page counts are for comparison to print counts. Since you have verified works containing both (Off Center / The Rithian Terror and Startling Stories, January 1953), I was hoping that the Amazon look inside sample[6] might be sufficient to figure it out. Would you mind checking? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The two items I have are nearly identical to each other and the excerpt. However, I've been able to find one difference which would indicate that the Gateway edition matches The Rithian Terror. The 10th paragraph from the end of the excerpt begins "He had not called her for three days." Which is how it appears in the Ace publication. That same paragraph in the magazine begins "He could have called her at any time during the past three days, of course; he had not done so.". I'll further mention that neither of my copies include the introductory paragraphs, before Roman numeral I. Additionally, the Jack Gaughan artwork appearing before section I in the excerpt is identical to the artwork appearing in the Ace edition on page 5 (v in our record). Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I have varianted it to "The Rithian Terror" and added approriate notes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ocean

Changed authorship of Utley's text from Steven Utley to Steve Utley as per title page in your verified pub.Hauck 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Weird

I just picked up a copy of the book club edition of this anthology and see that the foreword and afterword are titled "Foreweird" and "Afterweird" respectively. Can you check your copy of the retail edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do when I get back home in a couple days. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A word count of The Other Side of the Mountain shows it is a novella, so I removed it as a variant of the original French title (a NOVEL) and a different English translation. It may turn out that the original novel is actually a novella as well. Mhhutchins 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've corrected the titles of the essays. For the Beranos work, was the word count close to the limit? I'd speculate that the translation may have a novella length word count and may be abridged as well as translated. The 1967 publication in this anthology is stated to be from the Jean-Jacques Pauvert publication [7] which calls itself a novel (roman). Hervé has a 1977 copy of the French work and perhaps can let us know whether it is a reprint of the Pauvert printing and perhaps give us an estimated word count. He also has a copy of this review which is probably of a translation, though certainly not the 2012 one. It may shed some further light on the length, though that's a long shot. I'm going to invite him to this discussion to see if he can help. I'll also mention, for Hervé's benefit, that the novella in this anthology is split into 12 chapters and Two parts (chapters I-VI as part One, VII-XII as part Two). Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I recorded the word count in the Note field of the title record at the time I updated the record. Mhhutchins 21:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Some data : 1) there seems to be only one version of this text in french structured along the lines evoked above (the Pauvert version is the same as the Livre de Poche one, as per copyright). 2) usually, it's given as a novel (roman) albeit a short one. 3) a work translated from english to french gains up to 20% in length (not strictly gaining the same amount in word count) so a text translated from french to english should loose about 16.67% (the usual number is between 10 & 15%, see here). In this precise case, I'd say that the french text is (barely) a novel and that the translation shortened it to novella format. Note that, in the other way, I've entered translated texts in french in the same length class than their english equivalents regardless of translation effects. Hauck 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if I added a generous 25% to the word count of the English translation, it would still be less than 30,0000 words. Mhhutchins 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the length of the translation, there is only one work in French and we shouldn't have it listed as a separate novel and novella. I don't have a real problem with a translation being of a different title type than the original work, though I probably would have kept it as a novel despite its shorter length. Since translations are relatively new to the DB, we may not have encountered such a situation before. My concerns are that right now we're making it look like two French works where there is only one and that the note in The Weird makes it clear that the novella length translation is of the same work that we have listed as a novel. Perhaps we could open up a wider discussion to establish a standard. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That's up to you, but here's my take: If the French work is less than 40K words (in its original language), it should be changed to SHORTFICTION and the publications should be turned into CHAPTERBOOKS. That's the ISFDB standard regardless of the language. Or should we start changing the rules so that each language has their own and editors/moderators have to learn the rules for each? Mhhutchins 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

unindent: If the French work is under 40k, I am in total agreement with you. That's why I invited Hervé to join the discussion. While the French sometimes call it a novel (roman, as a subtitle), that doesn't mean they are using our definition. I certainly wouldn't want to have different size definitions for every supported language. Hervé hasn't specifically given us an estimated word count, but rather stated that it is usually called a novel. Since he has the only verified copy of the French work and hasn't moved to change it to a novella/chapterbook, I have to assume that he thinks it is over 40k words. However, I was unable to convince him or Bill that this publication should be a chapbook despite having an exact word count (38,631 words). See this discussion. Since I didn't own the publication (aside from the voter packet), I didn't pursue the matter, but left a note on the title record. His comments suggest that he may not be as interested in word counts. I don't know if he is following this discussion, but perhaps you could encourage him to get a more exact word count. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re the work by Kress: I agree that it is technically a novella, but some ISFDB editors have a more relaxed attitude about the rules than others. I've learned to choose my battles more carefully than in the past. With less than 5% difference in it being a novel, I'll pass on this one. If it were a greater difference, I might join in the discussion. Mhhutchins 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
For the Kress, my position didn't vary, the type can be changed by anyone, it's just that I'm not specially interested in such matters (I wasn't here for the chapterbook business but I find the concept completely without merit) and left the PV1's choice as it was (I really dislike to modify other's people data). For the Bernanos, without any more precise word count, I simply have no position. Anyone feeling strongly about the subject (and backed by hard data) can easily change it to the correct length. Hauck 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to get a quite good estimate of the word count of the original French version of Bernanos work, you can use this word counter. (You have to have a Google account to access it.) Mhhutchins 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Michael, I do have a Google account and requested access last week after your last post. However, to date, access has not been granted. I'm assuming that the word counter requires a copy of the French book (which I don't have), so it is probably moot anyway. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to merge the two French titles back into one (novel) title. There is only one French text and the only primary verified copy is asserted to be a novel. Incidentally, Reginald classifies the earlier translation as a novel. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have to have a copy of a book in order to get a word count. :) I've been away from my home computer for a couple of weeks, and I've forgotten my Google password. When I get home next week, I'll check to see if I've received your request to access the spreadsheet. Mhhutchins 04:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Since I created it, I've merged the French novella with the French novel, but will not change the English language types as they are clearly novellas. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pseudonym

Re Clifford D. Simak as a pseudonym of Durham Keys/D. K. Garton: I don't believe it's a good idea to make a real author into a pseudonym of another real person. In cases of either plagiarism, it's best just to make a note and variant the plagiarized publication record into a variant. This will automatically create a link to the properly credited title and both titles will be displayed on the proper author's summary page. Creating a pseudonym might lead to the false impression that "Clifford D. Simak" is a pseudonym of Garton and prompt unaware users that all Simak stories should be varianted to Garton. Mhhutchins 13:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood which one is the pseudonym. I see now that Bradbury is involved. I'll wait until you've completed entering these stories before any further discussion. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I was just building the relationship between the author records as we do with regular pseudonyms or misspellings. I only recall one other example where August Derleth masqueraded as J. Sheridan Le Fanu, and I thought that I had related the authors, but that relationship appears to be gone now. Regardless I can see how this would be confusing and the relationship between the title records should be sufficient. I did check the help pages for guidance but they are silent on plagiarism. We will run into a similarly confusing situation with house pseudonyms, except that they generally aren't a real person. With those, I think it is more important to link the author records and the help pages do speak to house pseudonyms. Don't worry about the confusion. That author has used at least two "real" pseudonyms and has plagiarized under both his pseudonyms and his own name. I'm only entering this magazine because someone on the FictionMags Yahoo group was complaining that we didn't have a contact or a way for non editors to submit corrections. I foolishly offered to do the odd correction on their behalf and now have two members there asking make more edits than I had bargained for. I also tried to encourage them to join us, but I'm not sure if they will. At least there were also a few comments about how much folks appreciate the database. Anyway, I'll remove the author linkage for the plagiarisms. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. And I fully empathize with the FictionMags situation. We may have forgotten just how daunting a task it was when we first came here. I can understand how new editors would feel, but can't feel any sympathy with anyone who has never even made an attempt. Mhhutchins 17:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

J. Agustus Knapp vs J. Augustus Knapp

Typo?--Dirk P Broer 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed now. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Dispossessed

Ron, does your verified 6th impression of the SF Masterworks edition of The Dispossessed also have an Australian cover price of A$14.95? I saw one with this price yesterday. Thanks for looking. PeteYoung 07:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It does. I've probably not been entirely consistent about adding foreign prices. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Black Caanan

Can you please confirm the spelling of the title as given in this record? See the title of the first novelette in this collection. It is given as "Black Canaan". Thanks for checking.Peregrin 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing a primary verified record

In the future, please post a notice on my talk page before you change a publication record which I have primary verified. You posted a message on a page for which I don't get a notification and a page which I have specifically asked editors to post the addition of cover images and notes. If you intend to change any other field of a primary verified record, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I did read your notification preferences before the edit and you specifically stated that you didn't wish to be notified of the addition of prices for Canada or other countries. While I expect that you probably mean prices other than the US price (or the main price), I found the instruction ambiguous enough that I thought to just roll it into the notification with the notification of the notes on your secondary page. My thoughts were that if you didn't want to be notified (as your note implies), then I'm not bothering you on your main talk page and you'd have no reason to complain that I wasn't following the instructions. Whereas, if it was a change you wanted to know about, it was there on the secondary page where I was already informing you of the addition of notes and the only thing that was lost was the pre-notification. I didn't consider the change to be at all controversial and if you objected, I thought, it can easily be backed out. Clearly I made the wrong decision of when and where to post, though hopefully now you'll understand why I did so and that I was attempting to follow your wishes. I can back out the edit if you'd like, though I don't think its the edit itself that you object to. Again, sorry. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could construe "add the stated price for Canada or other countries to the publication record" as the same as adding an unstated US price to a blank field. You're correct in that it's not the edit itself that raised the objection but the means of notification. As you know, any change in a user talk page generates a highlighted message on the database side, but changes to the notification page do not. That is specifically why I ask editors to use that page only for trivial (in my mind) changes to records. Adding an unstated price to a publication record is not trivial and constitutes a major change in the record, in my opinion. For those kind of changes I want to be notified before they are made so that I can consider their validity. I would expect that anyone who has verified a record would agree. Perhaps I was wrong to believe that. But I suppose we have to agree that we don't have the same understanding of the difference between "changing" a record and "adding data" to a record, and that my notification message could be misunderstood by some users. Mhhutchins 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Green Queen

Hello, the cover artist for The Green Queen side of this Ace Double is also Ed Valigursky, according to online gallery munchkinpress.com. Thanks. Horzel 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Replay", by Ken Grimwood

You verified the Gollanz Millenium edition of this book as "Millennium / Gollancz Fantasy Masterworks" #46 (sic). Wikipedia and WorldCat both list is as #45 in that series. I checked the Look Inside feature for the book on Amazon.uk, and the back cover shows it as #45. So I assume the listing as #46 was a typo, and I have corrected that to #45. Chavey 21:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've verified it against the copy as well. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Himself

I'm finding this odd credit given in several different con programs which you have verified. Even if the article is credited as "by himself", I would think it's OK to credit it to the actual author, instead of creating a variant. Is this a common usage among fan publications? Mhhutchins 04:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this list of titles credited to "Himself", all but the novel are in records which you have verified. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did the novel too, but it's really a separate case as it doesn't reflexively refer to the real author who's name appears in the title. I couldn't say how common "by himself" is used in fan publications. If I had encountered others I would have entered them the same way as to capture the credit as it appears, much as the help pages suggest that we do with "The Editor" even when we know who that is. (See Anonymous or uncredited works, especially "The intent is that the record made from the publication should reflect what can be found in the publication.") Since these all (excepting the Hogg novel) refer to the name that appears in the title, I could live with using that form of the name. It's probably enough of an edge case, that it doesn't need to be added to the help page. However, the help pages led me to believe that this would be the proper way to handle this form of author credit, so I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else came to the same conclusion when presented with the same situation. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 05:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never ran across it, but if it were an obvious pseudonym (as in A Novel by Himself) [note capitalization] I would have entered it that way. But if confronted with an essay titled "John Smith" [over] "by himself" I would have credited it to "John Smith". The use of "The Editor" isn't the same as "himself", because it's an attempt to create a persona within a larger work, i.e. a pseudonym. It seems to me that the use of "himself" isn't intended to be a pseudonym. (Perhaps it's an attempt at humility. Who knows?) The purpose of a pseudonym is basically to hide the true author credit which I feel should be the first consideration to determine if a credit is actually a pseudonym. Occasionally (read: rarely) the ISFDB rule to record credits "as is" has to be adjusted when facing such odd and rare cases. Mhhutchins 14:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I agree about the purpose of pseudonyms, at least within the database. We use them when a name is misspelled and there certainly isn't the intent in those cases to hide the author's identity. Despite that, and as I said above, I can live with using the author's name as it appears in the title in these instances. The only exception is the Hogg novel. An argument could be made that the author credit should be "A Justified Sinner" in that case. Since you pointed out the case of the letters, I pulled all of the examples. Again, excepting the Hogg, all of these instances but 2 capitalize the first letter i.e. "Himself". The John Hertz essay is credited to "himself" and the Edmond Hamilton to "HIMSELF". I'm not sure if you were making the case that case matters, but you seem to be suggesting that. If that doesn't change your opinion (and I suspect it won't), let me know and I'll merge the titles with their variants taking the actual name. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to the topic sooner. No, I didn't mean to imply that case matters, only that the usage in these publications should not be considered pseudonymous work. I don't think you'd go so far to claim that they are pseudonyms (except for the novel by James Hogg). Since the other seven titles are in the database as variants, then the standards require the creation of pseudonyms for each of the authors who have used it. Otherwise, anyone clicking on Himself will not see that it is a "pseudonym" for those seven authors. They will mistakenly believe that Hogg was the true author of all eight works attributed to this name. Or you can go the direction I suggest and just change the credit to the actual author, and note how the piece is bylined. Your call. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made the changes to all except the Hogg. Had you not disagreed, I probably would have left them as they were and I hadn't made pseudonym relationships between the names and himself, because I considered it one of those special names like uncredited, The Editor, or Anonymous where we build the variants but not the pseudonyms. In any case, this should get those out of the cleanup script. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. There's one more record remaining. Mhhutchins 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

70th Worldcon program

Can you confirm the credit for the artist on page 74 of this publication? His canonical name is spelled "Iain". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no credit and I took the artist name from our own records. I've changed it, but that now leaves us with a canonical name being a variant of a pseudonym, which is bad. It appears that the non-transient verifiers of the parent title book are inactive. Locus1 has the name as Iain. I would guess that the credit was simply misspelled in this instance and I'd suggest changing the record for the cover art. Do you think there is any use in asking Marc Kupper? His note says he may be slow to respond and I doubt that I would be able to remember the artist credit for a book I haven't seen in 6 years. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the parent title was probably misspelled. I'll correct it and it will correct the variant relationship. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Frederick or Frederic

Re this publication: Can you confirm the spelling of the cover art credit? The artist is normally credited without the "k" in his first name. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't a "k". Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Word count estimater

I've made my word counter into a public file, so you should be able to access it. It is based on Swfritter's original counter, with a few tweaks (there was a cell formula error in his that I've since corrected.) Take it out for a spin when you can a chance. Mhhutchins 17:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Steppenwolf

This record came up on a clean-up script, because the 10-digit ISBN doesn't correspond with the date (2013). The OCLC record which you provide as your source gives the date as 2001. Is it possible that this is a 2013 reprint that didn't update the ISBN to an ISBN-13 or is it a 2001 publication with the correct ISBN but a wrong publication date? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That should be a 2001 printing. Given that the 2013 date matches Holt edition, I expect that I missed correcting the date when I cloned to create the 2001 Penguin printing. I've corrected that and the record for the cover art. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 05:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Churchyard Yew"

Can you confirm that the story on page 243 of this August Derleth collection is credited to J. Sheridan Le Fanu? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. All the stories in that collection listed under pseudonyms list the pseudonym on the title page of the story. In this instance "as by J. Sheridan LeFanu" appears under the title. The other pseudonyms follow the same format ("as by"). I haven't pulled the other titles in the set, but they all follow the same convention as I recall. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"All I Can See Are Dark Eyes"

Re this publication: Can you confirm that this story's author is credited with periods after his initials? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It is credited as "PMF Johnson" without periods or spaces. I'm loath to make a third variant of his name but the relevant section of the help page suggests that we go with the author's preference when it is is either without periods or without periods and spaces. He has a website with a title without periods but with spaces. However, the caption on his picture is "PMF" with no spaces. I'm not really certain what he prefers, and the only reason that I'm trying to determine his preference is because of how that help page is written. If he seems to have no preference for space or not, then perhaps it would be best to record the name as presented and choose one as canonical. I'd probably go with "P M F Johnson" as canonical, with the other two "PMF Johnson" and "P. M. F. Johnson" as pseudonyms. We should also link that web page to whatever name we determine is the one. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "P M F Johnson" (with spaces) should be made into the canonical name. Any works published with periods should be varianted. But, any that are published without spaces should be regularized, since that appears to be a designer/typesetter decision and not an authorial one. After all, how would you pronounce a name spelled "pmf"? :) It's obviously a three-initial, non-period given name. What do you think of this plan? Mhhutchins 15:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it isn't authorial intent to not use the sapces since it is presented that way on his website as noted above. He even, facetiously, I think, states that PMF is pronounced "Peter". However, when it comes down to it, I'm not sure that I care that much. I've noted in the publication record that there are no spaces. If he ever starts being published frequently without spaces, we can revisit the issue. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Golden Cities, Far

There are four stories in the contents of this book credited to "unknown". Checking Contento & Ashley's Supernatural Index, they give credits to all four: "Prince Ahmed and the Fairy Paribanou" by Antoine Galland, "The Talisman of Oromanes" by James Ridley, and both "Arcalaus the Enchater" and "Isle of Wonders" are by Vasco de Lobeira. The credit "unknown" is usually used if the publisher/editor doesn't know who wrote the work, so they don't credit it. The ISFDB also uses it as the author of a work that was published by a pseudonym (usually a house name) which hasn't been identified. Do either of those uses apply in the case of these four stories? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume that the credits were already "unknown" when I verified the record.
  1. "Prince Ahmed and the Fairy Paribanou" appears on the title page with the subtitle "From Galland's Les Mille et Une Nuit In an Old English Version. I would recommend changing the author to simply "Galland" and varianting it to Antoine Galland since the author is clearly credited on the title page.
  2. "The Talisman of Oromanes" has the subtitle "The Merchant Abudah's Adventure with the Ivory Box From the Persian Tales of the Genii Translated by Sir Charles Morell". However the introduction makes it clear that Ridley is the ultimate author and is disguised behind a double pseudonym of both Morell as translator and Horan as author. I would recommend changing this to uncredited and varianting it to Sir Charles Morell, who we already have as the canonical name for Ridley. However, to be frank, I've got the only book by Morell since it maintains the conceit that he is the translator, so perhaps it too should be by "uncredited" and varianted to Morell. For the story in this collection, I'd also recommend that we add the first part of the subtitle.
  3. Both "Arcalaus the Enchanter" and "Isle of Wonders" bear the same subtitle "From the Portuguese Amadis of Gaul Translated by Robert Southey" and again Carter makes it clear in his introduction that the actual author is de Lobeira. Again I think this should be uncredited and varianted to the actual author.
Since there are several verifiers. I'll solicit their opinions as well before proceeding. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth (since I'm not a verifier), I like your approach. Just as long as those "unknown"s disappear. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well all the verifiers have had a chance to chime in and having heard no objections, I'm going to proceed with the edits described above. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Baum Bugle, Spring 1993

Can you confirm that the letter credited to L. Frank Baum on page 14 of this issue was actually written by Maud Gage Baum? (It shows up on the script that finds titles varianted to non-pseudonym-assigned authors.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There is an explanatory note on the preceding page stating that Maud is the actual author as the letter was written after Baum had died. The letter itself is signed L. Frank Baum. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien collection (?)

Re this collection: what is Tolkien's contribution to this collection of poems? According to the OCLC record, he is the author of responsibility. Is "Anonymous" credited on the title page? Are each of the poems credited to "Anonymous"? If Tolkien is retelling medieval poems (which I assume from the book's description) wouldn't he be considered the author? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked out the Amazon "Look Inside" on a current edition of the title, and see that it is credited as "Translated by J. R. R. Tolkien". If these are translations and not retellings, perhaps the poems should be credited to "unknown" instead of "Anonymous"? (The later is supposed to be only used if specifically credited as such.) Still, I would suggest that the book be credited to Tolkien, as it doesn't appear on his summary page and some users would expect to see it there. I see another editor as done that for the UK edition and there are six other pub records for a title record which credits Tolkien. What do you think? Mhhutchins 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

See my discussion regarding unknown below in The Haunted Hotel.
Clearly Anonymous is incorrect for both the poems and overall author. Further, this should be an anthology and not a collection.
I think that all author of the poems should be "uncredited". Since these are actually translations they should also be varianted. However, we don't have Middle English as a language (Should it be added?), so I assume that we would have an English translation of English and mention middle English in the notes. I'll also call your attention to this author who I think is improperly used, since I don't think he is ever credited that way. However, it is a way to indicate that Pearl is written by the same author as Sir Gawain which Tolkien asserts in his introduction and is mentioned in the author's Wikipedia page.
For the book itself. I feel that it should be an Anthology. J.R.R. Tolkien is listed only as the translator and no editor is listed. Christopher Tolkien's preface makes it clear that his father envisioned the book and he did write an introduction. I would suggest making the title uncredited but giving it a parent title with both J.R.R. and Christopher as editors. That way we would keep within our standards as we don't ordinarily list translators except in the notes. We would also get the title listed in J.R.R.'s summary page as desired. I would expect that all of the other printings are probably identical and I'm happy to engage the other verifier if you agree. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable plan. (Changing the type to ANTHOLOGY, the editor to "uncredited", and varianting it to both Tolkiens), but I would suggest that the content poems be credited and dated to "unknown". There are three cases where I believe "unknown" can be properly credited in the database:
1) If the publisher/editor publish a work for which the author is not known, thus uncredited.
2) If the work was published under a house name, and the true identity of the author of that particular work has not been established, so that the title record will be varianted to "unknown".
3) And then, of course, if the work is actually credited to "unknown" on its title page.
Since these are medieval poems for which the author is not known, I feel they should be credited to "unknown" with the language being English. If known, the language of the original can be given in the Note field with an approximate date of composition (if known), along with the translator credit. As you suggest, please start a discussion with the other primary verifiers. (I agree that the "Gawain Poet" is improperly used and will post a message on the Community forum to see if we can bring the editor into the discussion. It may be Darrah Chavey who has done a lot of work on pre-19th century work.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a separate discussion about merging the two title records for the book. I also don't think you and I are completely in agreement about the use of unknown and how to treat these poems in particular.
I feel that all the poems in this book should be credited to "uncredited" and given the date the Tolkien translation was originally published (1975). Further, I feel that they should be variants with a parent title of "unknown" for "Sir Orfeo" and "Gawain's Leave-Taking". I actually feel it is fine to have "The Gawain Poet" as a parent title for the other two poems as they are thought to be by the same author and this allows us to reflect that. I just don't think that author should ever be used directly unless that is the printed credit in the book. I understand your #1 indication about when "unknown" should be used, but I think it raises some problems. First it would be difficult to know whether the use of unknown in a title record was the result of #1 or #3 without it being reflected in the notes. Second, it requires us to know whether the editor/publisher is aware of the author. I agree that it is clear in this case. However, how would you credit the original manuscript? Leaving the use of "The Gawain Poet" aside for the moment, and if we presume that the original manuscript was by the original author, he presumably knew who he himself was and chose not to sign the poem. Thus we would end up with an original title as by "uncredited" with a child title as by "unknown". To give another concrete example this review of The Wizard of Oz that originally appeared in August 1900 in the Louisville Courier. Presumably the editor of the Courier knew who was writing the review, but to the editor of The Baum Bugle which reprinted the review, the author was unknown. Again we would end up with a title credited to "unknown" with a parent title of "uncredited". I don't think that this is a desirable effect and I suspect you wouldn't either. The more I discuss this, the less I feel like there is a good way to craft a standard for when to use unknown for a title directly in a publication (i.e. except as a parent in a variant relationship), except for your case #3 or the currently documented case in the help files i.e. data entered from a secondary source where the author isn't specified. I would suggest that #1 be changed to read "If the work was published without credit, or explicitly credited to a generic name (e.g. Anonymous), and the true identity of the author of that particular work has not been established, so that the title record will be varianted to 'unknown'." I'd further suggest that this is at the option of the editor. I don't see any use in varianting all those reviews that are "uncredited".
As far as the date goes, this is a translation and I think should be given the date the translation was first published and should be varianted to the titles representing the Middle English versions.
One last item regarding the original manuscript of Gawain. [Wikipedia] makes it pretty clear that it is a collection with 3 other poems, one being "Pearl" and we've got it as a chapterbook. I'll happily try to get that record in shape as well, but want to wait until we've got a clear answer about "The Gawain Poet". Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that it's a very complicated situation and one that is not likely to create a consensus if discussed in a larger context nor leading to a standard. In these rare cases, it boils down to the ISFDB editor's interpretation of the general standard. and I will gladly go along with any results of this interpretation as long as the circumstances are fully noted in the title records and the publication records. Or if it creates a conflict which is covered by a clean-up script, which was written based on the established standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Micahel West"

Re this publication: Is the story on page 300 correctly credited to "Micahel West"? Or perhaps it is "Michael West (I)" which was used once before by Derleth? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's actually credited as "Micahel", though I think it is a mistake. I've linked the names, which I missed earlier. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Floating Fancies Among the Weird and the Occult", by Clara Holmes

You verified this book from the Internet Archives copy. In verifying it from my physical copy, I noticed that the title for one story was different in the book itself from what was listed in the ToC, so I changed it (from "X-Ray" to "X Ray") in the record, with an associated note. I also added a cover image from my copy. Chavey 20:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Since you've got an actual copy. I'll happily remove my primary verification if you'd like to move yours up. I began verifying these just to let folks know that at least a scan of an actual copy had been examined. There is another editor that verifies in this manner and it seemed a good idea. I wouldn't have verified it in this way had it already been verified. Let me know if you'd like to take over the top spot. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with having us both in there. I don't think there will be many questions where problems would arise because you couldn't answer them from the scans. In fact, you could probably get to the scans faster than I could get to the actual book :-) Chavey 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Haunted Hotel

Re this publication: There are several stories credited to "Anonymous" and varianted to "uncredited". In the current standards a title can only be one or the other. "Anonymous" is only used when that is the exact credit. "uncredited" is only used when there is no credit whatsoever. Two of the stories ("The Spectre Bride" and "The Dead Woman's Photograph") are shown as "uncredited" but are varianted to the true author, which is the correct way to handle it. If the identity of the authors of any of the "Anonymous" stories is discovered the titles would be varianted to their canonical names. I was surprised to see both uses in the same book (some uncredited and some credited to Anonymous), but I understand that's possible.

BTW, I don't want you to think I'm going behind you cleaning up your records. Nor do I feel that I need to. (Heaven knows I have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after my own!) I'm working on the clean-up scripts and finding such non-standard entries have been made by practically everyone, including myself. Any problems that don't directly change a primary verified record by an active editor are being corrected, but I'm leaving messages on pages of the active editors of primary verified records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The second part first. I'm not feeling singled out in the least. I had realized by the questions that you are asking both of me and on the community forums, that you were working the cleanup scripts and I'm happy to examine copies that I've verified. I do end up taking a lot of time editing my own responses before I post. I've actually composed much of the response about the above Tolkien book, but don't think I've got what I want to say right yet.
For your specific question about this book. I think it is actually properly entered. First off, there are no author credits on the individual title pages for any of the stories. The authors appear only in the table of contents as the note indicates. Some, but not all of the stories are explicitly credited to "Anonymous". Others are not credited at all. In the cases where the stories were credited to Anonymous and they existed in other publications where they were uncredited, I chose uncredited as the canonical title record. I'm unaware of a standard that a title can be either uncredited or Anonymous but not both. Clearly it could be credited differently in different publications as it appears to have happened here. In that case a variant relationship needs to be built, so the question is really whether uncredited or Anonymous should be the canonical author. I was going to suggest that this may be an instance where the parent title should be "unknown", but I think I've changed my mind in the course of typing this out. Much of what I had been composing for my response about the Tolkien book is that the stated standard seems to indicate that "unknown" is only used as a placeholder when we are working from a secondary source that doesn't provide us with an author credit. There isn't any other use documented in the help files. I've recently begun using it as the author of parent titles for house names (when it seems important). I think that coming up with a bright line standard for when unknown should be used instead of uncredited would be tricky especially with the current documented usage. (Is it unknown because nobody knows or because we don't know?). There's probably a larger discussion that needs to happen here, but it's hard to get folks engaged. I would suggest that unknown be used in the current documented standard, but also be expanded to be used as the author of a parent of a variant title in situations where that is important (house names, where some of the actual authors are known). However, in cases where a work is credited to Anonymous or is uncredited and we don't have a parent title, they are de facto unknown and I don't know that making a parent with the author as unknown provides any additional information or clarity. I also don't know how we would craft a standard where we'd variant some uncredited titles to unknown without having to (or someone trying to) variant them all. Anyway, that's my $0.02. I promise to respond to the Tolkien question in a bit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand there may be rare cases where we have to variant an "unknown" to an "Anonymous", mostly when the same work is reprinted with different credits. I guess those will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. You're right that many anonymously published works are by unknown authors, and that logically those works would have an parent record credited to "unknown". That's something that never occurred to me. So essentially, there should be no titles visible on the summary page for "Anonymous". Either the works have been varianted to the known author or varianted to "unknown". That's something to think about, and probably to discuss on the Rules & Standards page. I would say thanks, but I know it's going to be a headache to get a consensus on how it should be handled. Why weren't these things discussed over the almost two decades this database has been in existence? (Smacking my head.) Thanks (begrudgingly). Mhhutchins 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Puffin by Design

Can you confirm the credit of "Stories for Six-Year-Olds" on page 162 of this publication? Is the work credited to Steve Cox by actually by Shirley Hughes? Mhhutchins 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's a note on the publication record. The explicit credit to Cox is for a later Puffin anthology with an almost identical name. It also gives the date for that later anthology The accompanying text makes me suspect that the caption is correct and they put the wrong image in the book. However, we don't track captions. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But we do track images. If the image is actually by Hughes, as you note, why not handle it like we do for any other art which is incorrectly credited? There are dozens of cases in the database where the publisher credited the wrong artist for the cover art. We note it in the publication record, but actually credit the correct artist without creating false pseudonyms and variant records. This is where the crediting of artists differs from the crediting of authors. (This all leads to a future conversation about the many incorrect attributions in this publication, but I'll hold off on that for now.) Mhhutchins 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No need for a separate discussion. In both publications, I've credited the interior art using the same principle. I'm unaware of cases where the cover artist has an explicit credit that is incorrect and thus the credit has been ignored in favor of the canonical name of the artist. If I encountered such a situation, I would consider it to be incorrectly entered and would attempt to change it to reflect the actual credit. This all comes down to whether artists and authors and editors should be credited in same fashion i.e. by reflecting what is printed in the book. The only difference with artists that I am aware of as a de facto standard is that we will add a credit to the canonical name when there is no credit at all (for this discussion, I'm ignoring the use of the longest form of the artist's name that appears somewhere in the publication, a de facto standard that I don't support). Other than that, I can think of no reason to treat them differently. For both written and visual works, we are attempting to reflect the fact that the work is credited by something other than the canonical name, or indeed, mistakenly credited. We have a method for reflecting that using the variant relationship between two title records. I don't see why that method should not be employed for interior and cover artwork credits just as it is for all other title types. The records indicate the incorrect credit in both the artist bibliography and publication contents as would be desired. We would lose that in the artist bibliography if it were only reflected in notes. You mention the concern of creating false pseudonyms. However, if that is a concern, why is not a concern with written works? Unfortunately, there is little guidance in the help files about reflecting mistaken credits. My understanding has always been (or at least from early on) to reflect precisely what is printed in the book. This is the first time someone has suggested to me that artwork should be treated differently and I'm just trying to understand the logic and reason for doing so. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If we were to treat credits for artists and authors identically, then creating a variant record in order to correct an incorrect credit would require that the artist of the incorrect credit by made into a pseudonym of the correct artist. I don't think this is ideal and would create false relationships between the two artists. It seems that such miscredit happens on a much greater scale for artists than it does for authors. For example, since you've made this a variant, the average database user will click on the "as by" artist credit, only to see that the title doesn't appear on that artist's page. But if it were a true pseudonym (such as "Emsh" for "Ed Emshwiller"), there would be no credits on the pseudonym's summary page which would be linked to the parent artist's summary page on which the user would find the title indicating the "as by" credit. So it is my opinion that incorrect artist credits should be corrected and noted without creating a variant record which would require the creating these false pseudonyms. Here are some publication records that have corrected incorrect cover credits: [8], [9], [10], [11] which were found using the Advanced Search. There are probably dozens more which have been discovered as incorrect and subsequently changed to correct the credit. I recall the situation being discussed several years ago, because some publishers (DAW Books was a chief culprit) would reprint books with new cover art and forget to credit the new artist but would retain the cover art credit which appeared on the original copyright page. It was determined at that time, but probably never documented in the Help pages, that the miscredited art records should be corrected and noted. Doing so would avoid the bibliographic headache caused by such poorly copyedited publications like this one. Mhhutchins 23:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of how pseudonyms are to be treated when it is a case of crediting to another author in the database is that we build the variant titles, but we do not build the pseudonym relationship between the two author records. Admittedly, the only two fiction examples that I can think of are ones where I probably was the editor doing the variants ([12] and [13]). I believe this to be a de facto standard in order to prevent just sort of confusion that you describe, but since none of this is documented, we probably have several standards going. I do know that you recently asked me about the Derleth story and the question of making Le Fanu a pseudonym of Derleth never arose. Personally, I don't see any confusion generated by having an "as by" note when no pseudonym relationship exists. It seems clear to me that "as by" means that is how the credit appears in the publication and I wouldn't expect to see it on the erroneous author bibliography. I do admit, that I am way to familiar with the database to know for sure how the situation you describe would be perceived. Regardless, your concern applies no matter what type of work (fiction or art or nonfiction) is miscredited. I don't find the fact that it occurs more often with artwork to be a compelling reason to come up with a different mechanism for reflecting the credit. It still seems to me that reflecting the data exactly as it appears in the publication is an overriding principle of our data integrity. Even if I had been aware of a discussion where it was determined that cover art should use the canonical name when it is incorrectly credited, I don't know why I would expect to extrapolate that to interior artwork instead of using the standard that we do for all other title types. Also, since it was never documented, I don't know how anyone who wasn't involved in the original discussion could be expected to know that such a standard exists, especially since it is directly at odds with the reflect what is printed standard. I also wouldn't know whether it would only apply to miscredits, or also misspellings which is another obvious error.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Standards have been established through practice which have not been documented. Some standards evolved as the software evolved, and unfortunately, the help documentation isn't always updated to reflect those changes in the standards. That's why moderators who are up on the changes in the standards (documented or de facto) can point them out to their fellow editors. I can assure you, as a moderator who has handled thousands of submissions by other editors, that incorrect art credits are corrected and noted without creating variant records. If you doubt that, just post an inquiry on a community page. If you find any in the database, other than those you have entered and/or verified please point them out to me. There is a difference between how miscredited authors and miscredited artists are treated in the db, and using one standard to support the other leads nowhere. The different standards arose because it is highly more likely that works of art are miscredited than written works. When works of art are miscredited it is usually an oversight or an editorial error, but when a work written by one author is credited to another, it's almost always either intentional or the editor believed the credit was correct. A publisher isn't likely to put the wrong author on the title page of a book, but will forget to change the copyright page, or credit the art incorrectly in the small print on the back cover or dustjacket flap. As to your last point, there is an obvious difference between crediting Bruce Pennington as "Bruce Penington" compared to the art being credited to Peter Jones. I personally have no problem if an editor chooses to correct an obvious misspelling of an art credit, as long as it's noted in the record. Even in the credits of written works, I feel that we variant too much, especially when it comes to punctuation. Since it's not likely that the standard of entering titles as published will ever be modified, I will continue to follow them even to the point of absurdity. If you're wondering why the subject of varianting miscredited art has just come up, it's because I recently asked Ahasuerus to create a script that finds mismatches in the author/artist fields of varianted records. This script has helped me to find and correct several hundred records in the database that were mismatched, almost all of them written works. Some can't be resolved, like the Derleth/Le Fanu story or the Maud/L. Frank Baum letter (there are maybe three or four dozen records like that), but there remain 20 or so records for mismatching varianted records based on miscredited artwork. I'm only suggesting that they be treated like other miscredited art records, and am not going to demand that they be changed to follow a standard which isn't even documented. In that regard, I concede your point. Mhhutchins 16:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Himself" redux

I added a new comment to this topic that may have got lost in all of the recent activity. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow and Tomorrow & The Fairy Chessmen

Please join in this discussion if you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Upon the Winds of Yesterday

I would like to suggest a few minor changes to this verified pub. I think we should drop "The Paintings of George Barr" from the title, since it's not on the titlepage, and on page 141, there's a statement about the publication date (September 1976). One other thing, my copy has a signature sheet (light blue paper), but there's nothing in the publication about it being a signed edition. I bought mine when it was published, so it could be for pre-orders only. --Willem H. 20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mine happens to be signed by both Barr and Don Grant, but not on a signature page. It's inscribed to someone named Jeremy. Chalker/Owings mentions that the book was released at the 1976 Worldcon where Barr was Guest of Honor. It does not mention a signature page, but perhaps it was for the copies distributed there. In any case, I've no problems with fixing the publication date or mentioning the signature page existing in some copies. I can live with the removal of the subtitle, but I'd like to point out that the subtitle is used by Worlcat, Chalker/Owings and Reginald3 all use the subtitle. Clute/Nichols does not. I suspect that the subtitle is taken from the page preceding what we ordinarily consider the title page almost as if there is a 2 page title page though it's the first page that bears the subtitle, in that interpretation. I could be that is what the secondary sources are considering, or perhaps they are taking it from the cover title. I'll leave it up to you as to whether to remove it. I did take the liberty of adding a note about Reginald and Worldcat as a result of researching this. I'll also ask if you'd have any objection to my replacing the general interior art credit with individual credits at some point? I generally like to do this with art books of this sort. However, I've got a number of other things I'm working on at the moment, so it may a while before I would work on that. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I added the month and notes about this and the signature sheet. I left the title as it was. Hadn't considered the possibility of a 2 page title page.
I think it's better to have individual credits for the interior art. The only problem is the horrible amount of time it takes (I did it for the new John Harris collection, took me days), so I have no objections, I would be cheering. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OCLC: 12345678

There are about two dozen publication records which link to this OCLC record, many of which you have OCLC verified or primary verified. Perhaps you were using a template and failed to replace the number with the actual OCLC record's number? I had seen a few of these over the years and fixed them, and ran across another one tonight. After fixing it, I thought to do an advanced search and found the other records. I searched for ">12345678<" in the Note field, adding the brackets because otherwise they'd be thousands of returned records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. I've fixed mine and a handful of other publications where other verifiers have used the same placeholder text. Thanks for pointing these out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The 47th World Science Fiction Convention: Noreascon Three - Heicon Program (cover)

I added an artist credit for Eddie Jones to Heicon Program (cover). This comes from SFE. Deagol 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Russell P. MacFail

Would you mind double checking the spelling of "MacFail" for the author credit of this essay in your verified The Best of the Baum Bugle, 1961-1962? I believe this is the same person as Russell P. MacFall. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for the catch. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Space on My Hands

Hello. I've got two remarks to make about this pub :

  • I can't find any indication of price (25c) on the book, but only an indirect allusion to it under the lists of hard-to-get books at the end. Shouldn't this (or some other source) be mentioned in the notes ?
  • Copyright page has : “Bantam Edition Published January, 1953" / “1st Printing.........December, 1952”. This makes me think it is the same pub (second printing) as this unverified one, where an editor has entered in the notes : “"2nd printing ....... January 1953" noted in printing history on copyright page of 3rd printing [May '80]”.

Thanks for your views on the matter. Linguist 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Also replaced Bookscans image with a new cover scan. Linguist 10:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Responded here. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the cover scan so that it's in much better condition than the one on Bookscans. Mhhutchins 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. Linguist 14:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC).
That's fine. Submission approved. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

70th World SF Convention program

Can you confirm the spelling of credited author of the piece on Jim Baen (page 108) in this publication? The author's last name is usually spelled with two "s"s. It should also be varianted to the canonical name T. K. F. Weisskopf. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Only one s. Variant and pseudonym created. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Player of Games

I have made a submission that extensively updates the notes of this pub that you verified: Preserving but reformatting information that was already present, and adding detailed information about printing history etc. I also added the cover artist credit which was missing before. Have a look if you find the time, and let me know if you find anything wrong. I hope you don't mind that I imposed my style of pub notes on a pub without asking first. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Last Unicorn

Is there an SBN stated on the copyright page of this printing? There are records for 1970 Ballantine Books editions which cite an SBN as the source for a derived ISBN. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The is. It's listed as the catalog number in the record, though the stated SBN adds the price i.e. "345-01503-095". I entered all of my Ballantine Adult Fantasys very early on and I don't know if I've ever researched whether of how we should record SBNs. I'll at least add it to the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Zothique

Can you confirm the ISBN given in this record? It is much higher than the ones assigned by Ballantine Books in 1970. According to OCLC, the ISBN is 0-345-01938-5, and that appears to be the number visible on the spine of the cover scan. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, though It's listed as an SBN, which includes the check digit and appends the price. I'll update the record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fall of the Towers

You have verified this. Please enter the discussion on the community portal whether we can eliminate two title records that are included in your pubs. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sentinels of / from Space

User Horzel made me aware of the difference between the cover and the titlepage of this verified pub. I changed the title from "Sentinels of Space" to "Sentinels from Space", and added a note. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hannes Bok: A Life in Illustration

After this discussion I added Hannes Bok as author of this pub. Hope you can agree. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And the same for Margaret Brundage in this pub. --Willem H. 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dispossessed (again)

Ron, is your verified The Dispossessed as by Ursula Le Guin on Ursula K. Le Guin on the title page – I suspect the former. Thanks for looking.

Sorry we never got to meet up at Loncon 3! I never got to a single panel discussion and my 5 year-old insisted we spend most of our time in the Exhibition Hall looking for superhero stuff. Still had fun though... Cheers. PeteYoung 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, our verified The Lathe of Heaven is similarly afflicted, but I'll let you as the P1 make the edit. PeteYoung 08:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Your suspicions are correct on both and I'll adjust them shortly. It was a great convention. I'm also sorry a meet up didn't work out. I did make an effort to look at folks' badges for your or Hervé's name, but never did find either of you. I'll make another try for meeting people for World Fantasy Con, which is local for me this year, being in the DC area. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rogue Moon

Re this pub that you verified: You may want to chime in on this discussion. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 15:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wyndham's Outward Urge

John Wyndham's The Outward Urge, was as a collaboration with his own pseudonym, Lucas Parks. We've correctly got the collection credited to Wyndham and Parkes. However, the individual stories are credited to Wyndham alone. Per our policies, these stories should be credited to both Wyndham and Parkes and made variant to the titles by Wyndham alone. Let me know if you agree to this change. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. I have no problems with the change. --Willem H. 08:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OK for me (even if it's a kind of overkill). Hauck 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Having heard no objections, I've gone ahead and swapped out the stories. Thanks all. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Road to Science Fiction: From Gilgamesh to Wells

Re the content titles in this record: Please join in this discussion when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

An apology

It appears I owe you a big one. Ahasuerus did a massive amount of digging and came up not just empty but with concrete numbers to prove my accusations to be baseless. My apologies. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and apology accepted. I'm looking forward to getting back to the amicable communication we had with each other prior to last year. Also, thanks to Ahasuerus for doing the research. You may want to take a look at the the conversation a couple of threads up. This is the question I originally asked last Friday. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

C. D.

Crediting this record to the author's initials doesn't seem to be the best overall solution to the situation. Even though it adheres fiercely to the ISFDB standards, it creates more problems than a simple message in the publication's note field could handle alone. There has always been some leeway when crediting introductions by the author, whether they're uncredited or initialed. I recall that it even came up for discussion years ago, and it was determined that if it's obviously by the book's author, there's no reason not to credit it to the author. Adding to the problem of making this into a variant by Dickens is the fact that it would also have to be made into a pseudonym. And unfortunately, C. D. is already taken. That would mean having to disambiguate one of them. I would consider this to be taking a simple situation to an extreme far greater than it's worth. Mhhutchins 03:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible Misspellings

The following of your verified records have possible misspellings in their titles. It would be appreciated if you would double check these to see if they are errors in the database or in the original publications:

If they are errors in the database, they should be corrected. If they are errors in the original publications, it would be good to add notes to the title records to avoid future questions. I have attempted to weed out foreign language and unusual (but valid) spellings. If I missed any, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've fixed or checked them all. There are a handful that are spelled in unexpected ways and I've ensured they are noted in the title records. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ellison's Edgeworks 3

Re this publication record: Because this doesn't include a novel title record as a content, it shows up on the clean-up report for "omnibuses without contents." Technically, it's an OMNIBUS, but based on the ISDFB definition, an OMNIBUS must contain at least one NOVEL title. And since this publication doesn't contain any fiction, it would better be typed as NONFICTION. In the past, the software wouldn't allow a NONFICTION publication record to contain more than one NONFICTION content title, but that bug seems to have been resolved. (See this record as an example.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the omnibus definition was one of the rules that we were a little looser about enforcing. As you note, it is actually an omnibus by the common definition. I'm aware of several other publications where we have omnibus records without novels, including the other 3 published volumes of the Ellison series. If we were to correct all the records we'd end up with a COLLECTIONs of COLLECTIONs, NONFICTION, and NONGENRE. We could even end up with a NONFICTION containing a COLLECTION. Do you happen to know the reason behind the existing policy of an OMNIBUS requiring a novel? I would guess that users of the database unfamiliar with our rather specific definitions would be surprised to see these volumes as something other than omnibuses. If there isn't a good reason for the current policy (I can't think of one, but I could be missing something), I'd advocate for changing the policy and the cleanup script accordingly. If there is a good reason, I can change it of course, but we should then apply the same logic to the remaining volumes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I've always thought that the ISFDB definition (which was established before I got here) was rather obtuse. I believe that any publication which contains at least two different full-length works which were previously published as stand-alone publications (separate books) should be considered an OMNIBUS. Why one of them had to be a NOVEL is strange to me. It's come up for discussion a few times in the years I've been here, but as usual, no consensus for changing the definition was ever achieved. As you pointed out there are several publications which contains the entire contents of two different collections, which should be considered an omnibus. And in cases where I was the primary verifier (like here), I disregarded the definition and typed the publication as an OMNIBUS. The case could be made that the books don't even have to be fiction (as in the Ellison publication we're discussing here). As I mentioned, I think the problem here is a software issue that doesn't allow certain types to be contained by other types. That's an underlying issue that I can't even begin to address. Whether the software can be rewritten to handle a broader (and a more reasonable) definition of OMNIBUS is above my pay grade. The fact that a NONFICTION work can contain another NONFICTION work is relatively recent, as I don't recall that being possible in the past. And it seems now an OMNIBUS can contain two COLLECTIONS and display them properly. It may even be that the software issue was resolved and the definition wasn't change to reflect that software update. That's been a problem over the past few years, because of the accelerated pace in updating the software, and the lag time in re-writing the help documentation. It's even possible that the clean-up report was written before the change that allows different types to be contained in an OMNIBUS-typed record. If you feel strongly enough (and brave enough) to broach the subject on the Rules & Standards discussion page, I'll back you to push for such a change of definition. I'll leave a note on Ahasuerus page asking if he can join this discussion before you bring it up on the Rules page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure why the definition was worded the way it's worded, but I agree that it's counter-intuitive. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that it was just a poorly worded attempt to ensure that books containing nothing but short fiction would be entered as COLLECTIONs rather than OMNIBUSes.
As far as the software angle is concerned, I will experiment with different permutations tomorrow and report what I find. Ahasuerus 05:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
After thinking about it and playing with the software for a bit, I have a few thoughts:
  • As a general observation, it's always been possible to enter an arbitrary title record in an arbitrary publication record. There are some safeguards in place to prevent a naive editor from shooting himself in the foot, e.g. "EDITOR" is not available in the drop-down list of title types when entering/editing publications. However, it's always possible to get around these constraints by using a different title type and then changing it to the desired type via Edit Title. Sometimes it's the only way to get certain things done, e.g. convert an ANTHOLOGY title to an EDITOR title when changing an anthology pub to a magazine.
  • There is another, separate issue of displaying contents titles. There is some logic in place to suppress the display of the "reference" title, i.e. the title whose title type matches the publication type, and COVERART titles. If you create a collection pub with multiple COLLECTION titles or a non-fiction pub with multiple NONFICTION titles, it may cause the software to misidentify the "reference" title and consequently suppress the display of the wrong title. Using OMNIBUS as the containing publication and as the "reference" title would help avoid this problem. You may still have a problem if you tried to create an OMNIBUS containing other OMNIBUSES, but that seems like an unlikely (and usually unnecessary) scenario.
  • For the reasons outlined above, I think it would be both possible and desirable to change the standard to allow entering books containing multiple book-length titles as OMNIBUSes.
Ahasuerus 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you both. I'll take a stab at proposing a change in the definition. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Year of the Quiet Sun

Found a signature on the cover of [this], at 7 o'clock on the timepiece. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The House of the Unbelieving Thomas

Re this publication: at about 200 words per page, and only 90 pages long, this barely qualifies as a novella. I've recently added a POD reprint as a CHAPTERBOOK, with a SHORTFICTION content, which I think better describes the work. What do you think? Mhhutchins 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The translation of mine is available at Gutenberg, so I was able to get an exact word count of 13,801. I'll make the title record into a novelette and adjust mine to a CHAPTERBOOK. One question regarding the title of the POD edition. You included "At the Ghost Hour". This actually appears on the title page of the book for my edition. That phrase appears to be the title of the series and I recall a discussion some while back where we determined that when a series title appears on the title page of a publication, we do not include it in the publication title. If you agree, the two CHAPTERBOOK titles can be merged favoring the shorter title. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll merge the CHAPTERBOOK titles, but keep the publication's title as is, because that's what appears on the title pages of both reprints and the PG edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I recall a R&S discussion where we agreed to omit series titles even when they appear on the title page. Thus to prevent having to prepend "Forgotten Realms" in front of every title in this series and others like it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the title field of the title record, but the title field of a publication record. If I recall correctly, it was determined that a primary verifier has the option to record the series in the publication's title field if it appears on the publication's title page. The title field of a publication and the title field of its title record do not necessarily have to be identical. One edition of a title might include the series in the title while the other doesn't, and it's good to have the publication records reflect that change. Mhhutchins 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
A question: I see your note on this record that your primary verification is based on a scanned copy of the book. Does that really qualify as a primary verification? What would prevent an ISDFB editor who has an ebook version of a print book from doing a primary verification of the record for the print book? After all, 90% of all ebooks are based on scans of the print book. Why not just give the source for the data in the publication record as a scanned copy of the book without doing a primary verification? This situation, as far as I know, has never come up for discussion. If I hadn't read the note, I would have assumed you have the actual book for which you've done a primary verification of the record. Just wondering. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I started this practice after noticinng that Kevin had done so and having talked with him about it. I had asked previously on one of the forums whether a primary verification was appropriate when working from a photocopy of the work (several issues of Weird Tales in my case), and was advised that it was. I began adding the notes with the links so that it was clear where the verification came from. There has been one instance where Darrah had an actual copy of the book and I offered to remove my verification in favor of his. However, he refused. I do think there is a difference between the scans I'm using and most ebooks. I'm only doing this when it is an actual scan of the actual edition in question, i.e. an exact facsimile. I believe most ebooks, at least those in the Kindle and Apple formats do not use images of the physical book, but rather are digital copies of the text either from optical character recognition (OCR) or in the case of more modern publications, perhaps from the same source from which the physical book was produced. In any case, my purpose in putting a primary verification on these books is to indicate that the details of our record have been compared against an exact facsimile (pictures) of an actual copy. I would not add a verification if the digital copy of the book was altered as is done with Gutenberg. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
As long as you continue to note the source, I have no problem with your verification practice, although I wouldn't do such a thing myself. But what if the scanned file is removed from Google Books (or other hosts), for legal reasons or otherwise, and you no longer have access to the scan? Or are you downloading it, if that's possible, to archive a copy of the file? The photocopy of the issue of Weird Tales you refer to is a hard copy (I assume) and is easily retrievable. That would have been a factor in answering your question about whether it can be the basis for a primary verification of the ISFDB record. An electronic copy in your possession would also be a factor as well. You can see that with each situation that's a step further away from the print copy, the question of primary verification changes. At the point where it's an electronic file on a server outside your control, primary verification seems to have lost its original meaning. Mhhutchins 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Man Plus

I uploaded this cover scan, you may wish to use it for this pub that you verified. The image file name uses the "code" for your publication (MNPLSFVSSH2004) because I accidentally uploaded the cover scan for your 2nd printing before I realized that my copy of the book is a 3rd printing. I hope that's not a problem. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. The cover appears identical to mine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

L'étui de nacre by Anatole France

Hi. I have just cloned a pub of this collection, and realized that a story was missing in the record already in the database. It is “La perquisition”, which should normally be the last but one, and come before “Le petit soldat de plomb”. Could you confirm that it is indeed absent from your copy ? TIA for checking. Linguist 13:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

It's not in that edition. Perhaps it was written or added later. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. For the record, Wikipédia-FR does not mention its being added later; but the article is not very elaborate. Linguist 15:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
BTW, I have changed L'Étui de nacre to L'étui de nacre on your pub record to conform with the norm in use in this database as far as French titles are concerned. This being said, this norm is a simplification of the usual French one, which is a bit complex, and would indeed require a capital É. Linguist 15:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

Ray Bolger narrating Little Oz Stories

I just discovered this recording on OCLC and created a record for it. Thought you'd be interested. Mhhutchins 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I placed it into the "Queer Visitors from the Marvelous Land of Oz" series, because all of the stories were part of that series. Mhhutchins 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now to try to find a copy. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you can't find the LP, the recording was re-released by HarperCollins on cassette in 1994, and on compact disc in 2006, in a box set with three other recordings of Baum's work, also narrated by Bolger. Mhhutchins 02:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Craig Hilton's cartoon

Could you please check whether "Cartoon: That's one small step for mankind ... One giant leap ... Damn! Oops, oh God ... oh shit. Ah! Damn ...... say, its this going out live?" is spelled that way in your verified Aussiecon 4: The 68th World Science Fiction Convention or whether it says "is this going out live?"? TIA! Ahasuerus 21:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. It was a typo on my part, which I've corrected. Thanks for the catch. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Der Herr der Ringe

Please add the contents to this omnibus record when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add them. However, I'm wondering if it would be better to delete the record. This help section advises that boxed sets should not be entered. I don't recall what went through my head 5 years ago when I entered it, but the box does have a separate ISBN and Worldcat lists it separately. I've no idea if the individual volumes were sold separately, though each having its own ISBN would suggest that they were. What do you think? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Arkham Collector, Vol. 1

Please join this discussion when you get a chance, concerning your verified record of this title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Baum Bugle reviews`

There are three reviews from the Baum Bugle on this cleanup report (see the INTERIORART records at the bottom) which are linked to the INTERIORART record and not the book publication's title record. I have cleared several on this list which were legitimate reviews of a book's artwork and not its fiction. Was that the case in these BB reviews? If so, please click the "Ignore this title" link. If not, they'll have to be relinked to the fiction title record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm nearly 100% certain they are miss-linked to the artwork and should have been linked to the corresponding novel. Since reviews link automatically, I could see that is is possible that somehow the software linked to the artwork over the novel (especially if there is a typo on one of the records). However, I'm sure the software would choose the novel first and it is certainly possible that I manually linked these incorrectly, so I wouldn't worry about the software being at fault unless we see more of these crop up. Situations where the author illustrates their own work are probably fairly rare, though less so with Oz books. I don't recall the Bugle focusing a review on artwork alone, though they generally do mention it. They have recently started a column specifically about illustrations. However, I never considered entering these as a reviews. They're generally the artist discussing their own work, and essays are probably the right way to go. I'll fix the records. Thanks for pointing them out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fantastic World of Gervasio Gallardo

Can you check the copyright page of this publication again? My copy has the statement 'First U.S. edition: August, 1976'. If yours is the same, we should change the publication date. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct and I've changed the date. I've also detailed the interior art and in doing so discovered that our page count was off by 10. Thanks for catching this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jane Gaskell's "The City"

I have a question about your verified "The City" prompted by the addition of a related pub.

The ISBN of your verified book is 0-312-66661-6 and the publication date is 1978. Also, the Note field has a Library of Congress link. If you follow the link, it shows the book's ISBN as 0312139829 and the publication year as 1977. If you search their catalog for "0-312-66661-6", it finds a record for John Wingate's "Red mutiny : a diary", a 1978 book. Could you please double check your copy to see what it says? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The incorrect ISBN is from the dust jacket. The copyright page has the correct one. The copyright page does state "Published by St. Martin's Press 1978". I have always thought that square brackets around a date in Worldcat meant the date was approximate. Perhaps the LOC uses this practice as well. Though I could be wrong about the meaning of the brackets. Anyway, I'll fix the the ISBN on mine and add notes. I'll also delete the duplicate. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Squared brackets around the publication date of an OCLC indicates a verified, but unstated year of publication. There was a long period when St. Martin's did not date any of their publications other than the year of copyright. But if the actual book states a year of publication (as this one), then it should take precedence, since the OCLC and the LCCN records are obviously wrong. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. My one worry is that if my copy were a 1978 reprint of a 1977 edition. However, I think that that two hardcover printings in successive years of a book that had already been reprinted in paperback are extremely unlikely, so I'll stand by the deletion of our 1977 record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 16:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Six Novels of the Supernatural

My copy of Six Novels of the Supernatural gives the same publication date as yours but it doesn't state that it is a second edition. Could mine be a first edition? Unfortunately, my price is clipped off. MLB 04:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mine is price clipped too, but there is a publisher ad on the back jacket that lists the book for $2.50. The price for the first printing is in Tuck. Tuck could be wrong in this instance, or perhaps the ad is wrong. Regardless, it seems unlikely that the publisher would issue a second printing in the same month as the first and also raise the price by 50¢. It's also possible that someone matched a jacket from a later printing with the book. I probably should have noted my source, and will do so now. Mine absolutely states that it is a second printing for September 1944 right below the statement of original publication. If yours doesn't have that statement, I'd assume that it is the first printing. Does your jacket have ads on the back? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Everything you say is correct, including the ads on the back. However, mine only sez "Published by the Viking Press in September 1944." There is no First Printing or Second Printing, etc. Of course, if this were meant for the library, book club, or school/university market then it could have seen multiple printings in one month. People read much more back then. MLB 21:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Book of the Sixth World Fantasy Convention 1980"

Your verified publication includes four art pieces by "Edmond" Dulac. It seems likely that these are pieces by Edmund Dulac. Could you check to see if they appear to be so? And whether it was a data entry error on isfdb that should be corrected, or an error on their part that should be aliased? Thanks, Chavey 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The name is credited as "Edmond" below each illustration, so I'll go ahead and make the variants. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Chavey 21:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Erwitt

Your verified The Witching Hour has the cover artist as Elliot Erwitt (one "t" in the first name). The artist's real name is Elliott (two "t"s)[14]. Would you mind double checking the publication before I make a pseudonym? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the statement on the back flap of the jacket has his first name with the single t. Please go ahead and make the pseudonym. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Manna from Heaven

Just received a copy of [this], I think ... POD, checked Locus and found a note that the edition with this ISBN supposedly had stickers on the back board and the jacket with Wilder Publications. My copy has a sticker on the back board [ISBNs only] but the jacket now has a barcode, with US price but no publisher anywhere except on the title/copyright pages. Date code on my copy is 28 05 14 but who knows when the jacket was reprinted. You and Willem have copies. What are the differences? --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No stickers on my copy, but it's highly likely that I removed any that were present. I hate stickers. The jacket has a barcode, with the artist credit above and the price below. No date code, the POD statement on page 256 has 'Printed in the United States'/ '20663LVS00001BB/54'. Otherwise identical to what you describe. Hope that helps. --Willem H. 20:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Mine has the ISBNs only sticker on the back board with a bar code. No sticker on the jacket, but I too may have removed it. I recall that I bought mine used, so it is also possible that it was removed by the former owner. Otherwise the back jacket is identical to Willem's. In any case, there is no residue from a sticker. I also have the POD page on 256, as Willem describes, but with a different number (70241LV00004B/161) under the printing location statement. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Remembering Derleth

The five unlinked reviews in this publication record appear to cover series, and, as such, would probably better be converted to ESSAYs instead of REVIEWs. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver Shadows

I am currently writing an article on Wikipedia and need to verify the month of publication of the novel Silver Shadows by Elaine Cunningham. You show Jan 1996, however my sources show June --Not January. Normally your website is very accurate; however coupled with the fact that the ISBN # 0-7869-0498-4 should place it in the June timeframe as others from June are 0496-8, 0497-6, 0501-8, whereas Jan ISBN's are in the area of 0-7869-0472-0, 0473-9. Please let me know what you find out and thanks for all the great info.

Nathan speednat

Corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Second Book of Lankhmar

I cloned this pub that you verified to create a new record for a 4th printing. While verifying the data I noticed two things:

  • In my copy of the book the table of contents (p. 415) erroneously lists "The Curse of the Smalls and the Stars" as beginning on page 469. The story actually begins on page 468.
  • In my copy of the book there is an "Author's Note" on page 3. I added this title to my pub record to reflect this.

You may wish to double-check your book in case it contains the same things. Note: I invited Hauck (the PV2) to this discussion. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, pub modified accordingly. Hauck 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Twisted Men/One of Our Asteroids is Missing

If in the notes to The Twisted Men/One of Our Asteroids is Missing credit Jack Gaughan and Ed Valigursky, why is Ed Emshwiller credited as doing the cover? MLB 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Something About Cats and Other Pieces

Re this publication: The content on page 165 is typed as ESSAY, but varianted to a SHORTFICTION record. Can you please determine which is the correct type? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources either list it as a short story (Miller/Contento) or a vignette (Contento1 and Locus1). I've changed the title type. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Elric: Swords and Roses

Re this pub that you verified: The title of one of the interior art pieces seems to be missing a word. Shouldn't "Der Zauber des Weissen" rather be "Der Zauber des Weissen Wolfs"? Thanks for checking, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mislaid Charm

I converted your two verified records of this title to CHAPTERBOOKs according to ISFDB standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jules Verne [The] Carpathian Castle

I've taken the liberty of retitling this pub by removing the word "The". Neither the front cover or the title page use it. You are the only other verifier. Doug 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to the Audiorealms Version of The Sailor on the Seas of Fate

Re this title that appears in this pub that you verified has the ESSAY type. I noticed, however, that the writing is fictional (the narrator writes from an in-universe perspective). My personal preference for fictional essays is to give them the SHORTFICTION type, so I wanted to ask whether a title type change to SHORTFICTION would be OK with you? It's no big deal if you are against it, because either way I plan to add a title record note that explains the situation. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Please proceed with the change. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Age of the Young Kingdoms (map)

While verifying some Elric books that I recently acquired, I noticed that there are two versions of the map titled "The Age of the Young Kingdoms". I have made edits which have led to the following state in the database:

  • This title record represents version A of the map. This version is a rather simple drawing, with the title in the lower right corner below the compass rose.
  • This title record represents version B of the map. This version is a bit more nicely drawn, has a few more geographical details, and (most noticeable) is embellished with two swords (one on either side of the drawing) and the title in large letters underneath the drawing.

Now maybe my edits were a bit hasty *cough*. The title record that I think represents version B of the map appears in two publications that you have verified: Elric: The Stealer of Souls and Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress. Could you please check your books whether they really contain the embellished version B of the map? If that's not the case I will have to switch the title record references in my own pubs, and also fix the title record notes.

Note that according to my information the simple version A of the map was first published in "The Fantastic Swordsmen", 1967. You happen to have verified this publication of that title, so it should be easy to determine which version of the map appears in the other two of your pubs.

Thanks for your help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

The two maps in the Del Rey collections are different and I've fixed those records. I've changed the parenthetical portion of the title of the one published second to indicate that it varies from the first. I've also expanded the notes of both maps. The 1972 map does have a signature in Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress. Based on your original note, I would guess that sometimes the signature is cut off and adjusted the note accordingly. I'll add the map to the De Camp anthology, but I want to check with the other verifiers first. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. The notes you added to the 1962 map title match what appears in my book, but the notes for the 1972 map title seem to describe a different drawing. I cobbled together a partial scan (a full scan is not possible, I don't want to break the back of my book) of the drawing that appears in "Elric of Melniboné and Other Stories". Could you please take a look and check whether this is the same map that appears in "Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress"? If it's not, then I have a third variant of the map. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime I found the third variant: Please take a look here. I took this partial scan from my copy of the Gollancz book titled Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress (which is a completely different book than your Del Rey book of the same title, I just haven't got around to verifying it yet). This is probably the same map that appears in your Del Rey book, correct? The acknowledgments in my Gollancz book say "first published in Warlocks and Warriors, edited by Douglas Hill, Mayflower Books, 1971". Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the scan of the one you are calling the third variant is the same as the one in the Del Rey Sleeping Sorceress which states it was first published in the first edition of Elric of Melniboné which would make its first publication as September 1972. Does the map you originally called "version B" ([15]) have any notes in Elric of Melniboné and Other Stories that indicate where it was first published? If not, we should assume that it was first published in the 2013 Gollancz collection. At this point I think the records for the 1967 map are good. I would recommend that we change the title of the 1972 map to "The Age of the Young Kingdoms (variant map I)" and that we adjust the notes to state that it is signed. Further, I'll add it to the first edition of Elric of Melniboné. For the 2013 map (unless you have evidence of an earlier publication date), I would recommend that you adjust your pub by deleting the 1972 map and adding a new item titled "The Age of the Young Kingdoms (variant map II)". You can then adjust the notes of the new record to describe it so anyone encountering a new Cawthorn map can hopefully match it up. Let me know if you agree. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmmm... the credits in our books are contradictory. It's getting a bit complicated, so let me rehash what we have so far. For the purpose of unambiguous reference, please let's stick to the designations "version A", "version B" and "version C" (I unfortunately called version C the "third variant"), even though this may not match the year of first publication.

  • Version A map (title record): I agree that the records for this map are good. We agree that it was first published in 1967.
  • Version B map (link to scan): Acknowledgments for this map in Elric of Melniboné and Other Stories (Gollancz, 2013): "[...] map first published in Elric of Melniboné, Hutchinson, 1972".
  • Version C map (link to scan): Acknowledgments for this map in Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress (Gollancz, 2013): "[...] map first published in Warlocks and Warriors, edited by Douglas Hill, Mayflower Books, 1971".

From what you write, the Gollancz and the Del Rey editions of Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress have different credits for the version C map. If we believe the Gollancz credit (published 5 years later in a carefully edited pub series, so hopefully more correct), then it would seem that Del Rey somehow confused the maps: They published version C, but accidentally gave the version B credit. I hope you agree with this conclusion?

As for the course of action you suggested: Sounds good, we only need to adjust the edits to suit the new findings. To rehash again: You go first, edit the existing title record into shape so that it fits your Del Rey edition of Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress. Feel free to add any pub notes and use any disambiguating suffix you like ("(variant map I)" sounds good). Once you are finished I will follow your lead, creating the title record for the version B map and making the necessary adjustments to my Gollancz pubs. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I also removed version C from Elric of Melniboné (Hutchinson, 1972). It probably should have Version B, but it may be safest to wait until someone can verify it. Please check the notes for Version C and see if you agree with them. You'll need to remove Version C from Elric of Melniboné and Other Stories and replace it with version B which I would recommend titling "The Age of the Young Kingdoms (variant map II)" keeping the Roman numbers going in chronological order. Ultimately, it's your call. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. The notes for version C are good. Here's version B. Thanks a lot for helping me with this, this time Law has been victorious against Chaos :-) Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Sailor on the Seas of Fate" interior art by James Cawthorn

And one more Elric-related question: Is it possible that this interior art title is the same as this one? Both appear in publications that you have verified. If yes, I think the first should be made a variant of the second. What do you think? Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No. They are entirely different. The one in Duke Elric is believed to have been drawn for Die See des Schicksals, but was not previously published before it appeared in the Del Rey volume. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Allan Quatermain

Please check the ISBN given in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another one to check. And one more. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. The one in the Derleth book is misprinted. However, I was able to find the correct one though Worldcat. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Scream for Jeeves: A Parody

Ron, I've had an enquiry from Dave Langford re. Peter Cannon's Scream for Jeeves: A Parody. He says:

"Peter Cannon's Scream for Jeeves is listed as a novel while we [SFE] have it as a collection. It consists of three separate stories (in which Jeeves and Wooster meet Lovecraftian scenarios), separately titled and referred to as 'tales' in the blurb, plus an essay; but this is obfuscated by putting Chapter 1, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 before the story titles."

Dave doesn't mention the titles of the stories or essay, but as verifier of this pub I reckon you will be better placed to straighten this one out, if needs be. Thanks. PeteYoung 23:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably correct, and it looks like at least some of the stories were published separately. I'll change the records. This also caused me to realize that I've actually got a second printing, so I'll move my verification after fixing and cloning. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ISSNs in records for The Baum Bugle

When you get a chance, could you please remove the ISSNs which are currently in the ISBN/Catalog # fields of records for this periodical? They are appearing on two different clean-up reports: Publications with Invalid Catalog IDs and Publications with Identical ISBNs and Different Titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the ISSNs will have to be removed from the issues of Weird Tales which you primary verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. My knee-jerk reaction on seeing this was a bit of annoyance at being asked to do a long and tedious task based solely on a change in standards. At least, I recall that I read somewhere when I first started editing that it was proper to place the ISSN in the ISBN field. At some point I noticed the current help text that states that while this was at one time the case, it is no longer done and I stopped entering them. Perhaps this is something that would have been better handled by a database script. However, it didn't take as long as I expected.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
At one point I considered creating a database script, but there were various permutations and formats (not to mention data entry errors), so I figured that humans would be better judges of what needed to be done :) Ahasuerus 17:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I do enormous amounts of long and tedious tasks which are based on changes in the standards. And I'm annoyed that quite often when I ask for assistance in these clean-up jobs that I'm met with resistance. Thank you for bringing your verified records up to the current standards. Perhaps it's time for me to start working on my own projects, like so many moderators have chosen to do, and leave the clean-up reports and moderating Fixer's and new editors' submissions to someone else. Mhhutchins 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
We all know how much you do to keep the project going, Michael -- and we do appreciate it! My reading of Ron's response was that database changes based on evolving standards would be better handled via scripts. And it's certainly true that it would save editors and moderators a great deal of time, but, unfortunately, it's not always feasible. Even something as simple as removing spaces within ellipses took me many hours to code and test due to the number of permutations, e.g. most occurrences of ". . . ." needed to be converted to "....", but titles and pubs like W.I.S.E.R. ... Shouldn't We Be?" had to be handled differently. Fortunately, the other day New Scientist reported that a Google-owned company is developing a "computer with human-like learning [which] will program itself", so Singularity may be closer than we think ;-) Ahasuerus 23:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Both of you do yeoman's work and deserve all our gratitude. You certainly have mine. My comment is not about being asked to correct data in general but relates specifically to being asked to delete the data for this particular situation. My understanding of the ISBN/Catalog # field is that is was once the standard to enter magazine ISSNs in that field. This is mentioned in the template for the field which continues to say that the entry of ISSN is no longer done. Based on that description I understood that the field would contain legacy data (the ISSNs) that we no longer enter. There is nothing in that template that indicates that the legacy data should be removed. In fact, the bullet point mentioning ISSNs is a strong indication that the current standard is for the legacy data to remain. If the field should never contain ISSNs, why mention them at all? It seems to me that the removal of the legacy data is not the current standard, but rather a new one, that I don't recall being discussed. Ultimately, I'm ambivalent as to whether the ISSNs are removed or not. I agree with the consensus that it need not be entered as it doesn't vary by publication but I see no harm if the existing data remains. The data is not incorrect, just unnecessary. It's clearly documented that the field may contain ISSNs so there's no risk of confusing users. Even if I weren't ambivalent to the data removal, I certainly wouldn't consider the removal to an urgent task, for much the same reasons. We've all got a finite amount of time we can devote to the project and when someone requests that I shift my priorities to devote a large amount of time to a task that I consider to be unnecessary and not urgent, I'm going to bristle a bit at being asked. My whole reason for going ahead with the edits is that I was hoping to avoid getting drawn into just this sort of debate. Clearly, my strategy was not entirely successful. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the reason why this part of Help was written that way is somewhat different. In general, when one of the data entry standards is changed, we try to go back and change the affected records in order to keep everything consistent. Unfortunately, sometimes it's not easy to find the records that need to be changed. In those kinds of cases we sometimes explain both the old and the new standards in Help so that new editors would know not to use the old standard even though they may occasionally come across its applications in our data. Once we clean up the data -- which usually happens when a new cleanup report is added -- we can go back and change Help not to mention the old standard. Ahasuerus 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hodgson books from Night Shade

Can you confirm that the same ISBN is used in this publication and this one. According to some sources (like OCLC) the second volume's ISBN is 1-892389-40-1. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 23:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The second volume has the same ISBN as the first appearing on the copyright page, which appears to be my source when I entered it. Happily, I've got sticker on the back of the book with the ISBN matching the Worldcat record and I'll adjust the record accordingly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sac Prairie People

The NONGENRE titles in this publication should be changed to SHORTFICTION. (If you look at how these works are listed on Derleth's summary page, compared with those, for example, on Poul Anderson's, you'll see how the average user might think those Derleth titles are novels.) The NONGENRE type is currently restricted to nongenre works of novel-length. There is hope that we will eventually have software support for nongenre short fiction, anthologies, collections, etc, but until then we can only note that a work typed as SHORTFICTION is nongenre in its title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I do understand that and no longer enter non-genre short fiction that way. However, this was entered per the instructions on this help section which specifically states under Entry Type that NONGENRE should be used for stories. Thanks for pointing these out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Grant ed. of The Pool of the Black One

Can you confirm the ISBN given in this record? It duplicates one in another verified record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Howard was incorrect. It looks like the Locus1 has the wrong ISBN and I missed it when I verified. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Windy City Pulp Stories #11

Did Mike Chomko write a congratulatory essay about himself on page 67 of this publication? Mhhutchins 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's actually more of an acceptance essay written in the first person. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lester Dent: The Man, His Craft, and His Market

I see you are the OCLC/Worldcat verifier for this pub. I don't know if you entered the data for the book but the price shown in the record is $10.00. My copy shows a price of $11.95 on the back cover. I'm wondering if I have a different publication of the same title or whether the price on the unverified record is in error. The record says that data is from a review in Pulp Vault, so we still don't really know if it's correct. I've seen the price on Amazon at $10.00 but that doesn't mean it's the price given on the book. The copyright of my copy is 1994 and the date given in the Publisher's section is also 1994. Any ideas? Doug / Vornoff 04:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The price is from the review which states that it can be ordered directly from the publisher for $10. If you've got an actual copy, you should feel free to correct it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Repossession of Jerry Cornelius

I would like to merge the following two essay title records (keeping the title from the first record):

The second record appears in this pub that you verified (and also in a pub PV'ed by Kpulliam, so I invited him to join this discussion). I think its reasonable to assume that these two title records refer to one and the same essay. The main question is whether you want to keep the disambiguation title (in which case I would create a variant title instead of merging)? I think disambiguation is unnecessary, though, because the title "The Repossession of Jerry Cornelius" is not generic. Thanks for your reply, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no issues with your proposed merge and preference for title. I always prefer leaving off disambiguation when the titles are not generic as this one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Merge complete. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird Tales, October 1934

I added information and changed content and notes for Weird Tales, October 1934 based on the facsimile version published this month. Bob 01:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't have a primary verification of that issue. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fantasy Macabre, April 1991

I'm trying to link "unlinked" reviews by adding publication records, and I can't find anything on the internet (other than our listing) of the title "The Mythos Writers: Ramsey Campbell" by Ramsey Campbell, reviewed in this issue. Can you confirm that this is an actual publication and provide further details in order for me to create a publication record for it? Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed a similar title from another author in a previous issue of the magazine, but it is an interview. Could the one cited above also be an interview? Mhhutchins 06:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. It should be an interview, and now it is. Thanks for catching that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Pulp Vault, November 1989

Ron, in your verified pub you show the date for interior art for The Son of Long John Silver by Jon L. Blummer as being 1989-11-00, same as the pub. Would it be more appropriate to leave this date blank? I've been looking into Blummer and he passed in the 50s. So when you look on his bio page the date looks wrong. I've recently added some biographical info for Blummer. that hasn't showed up yet. There are a few others like that, i.e. Bok, Finlay and perhaps more that are in the same boat. What do you think? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the date blank would substitute the date of the containing publication which is undoubtedly how these titles ended up with the date they have. The date is also meant to indicate the date of publication, as opposed to the date the artwork is created. Thus having works that were published after an author's death is not unheard of. In this case, while these dates are probably not those of the original publication of the artwork, they are the earliest known publication of those pieces and can be adjusted if we every are able to match the illustrations with an earlier appearance. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Instead of saying leaving the date blank, I should have said "entering a 0000-00-00 date" which I presume leaves a blank date on the record. The positive, for me, for that is when viewing a list of the author's works, you wouldn't assume that a later-published date was the first published date of the work, but that it was just unknown. Clicking on that title in the list would show you the various publications of that work and you would see when they were published IN THOSE WORKS. Then delving into one of the pubs would show you that the work was indeed published there but not there first. I really couldn't find any other suggestions for this and don't want to go against policy but it kind of made sense to me. But I haven't been doing this very long and may be missing something. Doug / Vornoff 06:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This artwork is almost certainly from the July 1935 issue of Pirate Stories where the story by W. R. Van Buskirk first appeared. However, since there is not a specific credit in Pulp Vault for the artwork, I can't be completely certain if the illustration is from that appearance of the story. It is even possible, though I think it quite unlikely, that Pulp Vault found a previously unpublished illustration. In my experience, we almost always let contents take the date of the containing publication unless we have a source giving an earlier date. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ron, I see what you're saying and I'll stick with the convention. Doug / Vornoff 23:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sticking my nose in where I probably don't belong, I agree with Ron. Giving the date as "0000" doesn't blank the field. It displays the date as "unknown" which is technically correct, but may cause confusion when an earlier (or even later!) publication is found. At least giving it the date of the first known publication is a starting point, as Ron says. It gives the editor an option of which date to choose when merging the records. For example, if this work were reprinted in a 1990 publication and its 1980 publication had been zeroed out, the merging editor would naturally choose 1990 as the date of the merged publication. I know there are editors who use "0000" in cases like this, but have found in the course of my years here that any date is better than no date. Mhhutchins 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Havelin vs Hevelin

Hi, could you please check whether DUFF in this publication was written by Rusty Havelin or Rusty Hevelin?--Dirk P Broer 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the error. The name should indeed be "Hevelin". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction: Shortstory vs. Essay

Usually, the introduction to a book is an essay, but some of the books that you have verified list their introduction as a fictional short story. Could you check these and, if they really are short stories, add a title note to the Introduction record noting something like "Fictional introduction"? And of course if they actually are essays, then correct them? Works that fit under this question are:

Oziana 2012
Shadows of Sanctuary
Last and First Men

Thanks, Chavey 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

They're all fictional. It looks like someone else got to the second and third ones before I did. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I had only asked one primary verifier for each title, but I may have erred. Chavey 23:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Tessa Farmer

Hi, I do think that the Tessa Farmer featured with an interview in this issue of Weird Tales is likely to be this artist, but to make sure, could you please take a look at the interview and/or her art if there are in fact resemblances? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 07:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely the same artist. The pieces in this pub are also the same artist. I'll let you update the author record, unless you'd prefer that I'd do so. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the effort! I was pretty sure of the identity but not 100%. I'll update the author information. Christian Stonecreek 14:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The World Treasury of Science Fiction

I believe I have this publication. I am confused by the current publisher credit, however. It is listed as "Little, Brown / QPBC". I would have expected it to be "Little, Brown / BOMC" (as the hc editions are) per the fifth note ("BOMC" only indicated by add on copyright page for other media types availability). Is the publisher credit or the note wrong? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the credit is wrong. It appears to be from Locus1 and I've added another note to that effect. QPBC was one of the clubs operated by BOMC. The note on the copyright page is really an advertisement (the note previously said "add") and isn't trying to indicate who published the book. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. The hc credit seems to be based on the ad, but lacking a firm secondary source, so be it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A few other questions / suggested changes:

  • Pages: I believe the page count should be 'xix+1083'
  • Pairpuppets (p278): This is missing from the translator notes. I would add a note stating translated by the author (Manuel van Loggem)
  • The Tale of the Computer that Fought a Dragon (p328): My copy does not have the leading "The". If you can verify yours doesn't also, I will check with the hc verifiers.
  • The Lens (p545): This is missing from the translator notes. I would add a note stating by the author (Annemarie van Ewyck).
  • A Kind of Artistry (p782): My copy credits this as 'Brian Aldiss'. If you can verify yours does also, I will check with the hc verifiers.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the page count and added the notes about the translators. The translator notes are from the other inactive verifier and I wouldn't have notes them at all on this record. I think they more properly belong on the variant title records for the translations. However, in both these cases there are other appearances of translations of these stories and I can't be sure the translator is the same in all instances. For the other changes, please go ahead after you've gotten assent from the other verifiers of the other editions: "The" does not appear as part of the title for the Lem story (nor does it appear in that title in this collection. The credit for the Aldiss story is simply "Brian Aldiss". Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The hc verifiers will be awhile as they don't have their books readily available. I've gone ahead and updated our version. They can make the corresponding changes (if needed) when they get to theirs. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Waste Lands: Disambiguation of "Argument" content item

Please check out this discussion. You are affected because of this pub that you verified, but unlike the two other editors you are probably OK with the disambiguated title that I chose because it matches your pub. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

T. H. White's The Bestiary

Most sources, including SFE3, gives this as nonfiction, a translation of a 12th century work. But from the description here it could also be considered a collection. Whichever you decide, please change the title record and the other publication record to match it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over, but it looks like someone else already made the edit. It's absolutely a translation from a 12th century Latin manuscript of a work of unknown authorship. My original feeling was that this should be listed as a translation with the author as uncredited. However, the extended title "being a translation from a Latin bestiary of the twelfth century made and edited by T. H. White", mentions him as editor as well as translator. So, I can live with him being listed in the author field. There is an extended appendix that is entirely his work. As to nonfiction vs collection (or probably an anthology, since White states that the original work is likely by several hands), it is clear that the original authors considered this to be a work of natural history. It contains descriptions of creatures we know to be mythological (e.g. Manticora) and that was my original reason for classifying this as a novel, since we don't really have a type appropriate for a long fictional work that isn't really a story. Perhaps shortfiction, with no length would have been a better choice, as we do for plays regardless of length. Regardless, I can live with this being nonfiction. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oz-story Magazine, June 1995

In your verified magazine, you have a story listed as Handy Mandy: Solomon T. Wise's New Cook. In the original 1929 publication of that poem, the word "Soloman" is written with an "a" as the 3rd vowel. Could you check your magazine and see if this was a typo in the entry, or whether it needs to be a variant? Also, you have this listed as a story set in Oz, but the Soloman T. Wise works don't seem to me to be part of the Oz world. Chavey 14:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a variant spelling. I added it to the Oz series because of the appearance in Oz Story. However, scanning the poem, this does not appear to be the same character that Thompson eventually used in Handy Mandy in Oz, though she clearly re-used the name. This isn't helped by the fact that the Neill illustration in the poem appears to be from the Oz novel. I've removed the series. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Wizard of Oz", by Salman Rushdie

You verified this publication of "The Wizard of Oz" by Salman Rushdie as a non-fiction book, containing "At the auction of the ruby slippers" as an essay. But every place I can find a discussion of this work online refers to it as a short story, including WorldCat, Wikipedia, and this teacher's website about teaching the story. Could you check whether your "Wizard of Oz" was entered incorrectly, or whether it just has some completely different item? In addition, Pete Young claims here that this essay is non-genre, which would make this entire book non-genre. Again, the online material I've read seems to imply that it's primarily about the social and religious importance of those shoes, and not really about "The Wizard of Oz" per se, so it seems that he may be right. Chavey 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"At the Auction of the Ruby Slippers" is actually a story, and from scanning the first few paragraphs, I would consider it to be speculative. In addition, the teacher's guide you cited states "The story appears to be set in some sort of future dystopia" which would clearly place in our definition. We already had the story in this other copy of the collection that Pete had verified and I've merged the essay with that story. I'm not certain whether you are also asking about the essay contained in my book, or referring to the story only. However, I'd also argue that the essay is definitely genre related. Not only does Rushdie speak to the influence of the film on his writing and his first story (a fantasy) written at age 10, he also discusses Baum's novel. Consequently, I've removed the non-genre flag from the essay. I'm leaving the whole of the publication as Non-fiction based on the relative sizes of the essay vs the story. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Vrisesendorp vs. Vriesendorp

Please see the changes I have on hold by NobbyHH. While Bluesman is the primary verifier for the impacted pub, the source of the artist credit is given as Puffin by Design which you have verified. As such, I'm assuming you are the source of the credit vs. Bluesman (though I will notify Bluesman of this discussion as well).

Would you please double check 'Puffin by Design'? Please note that there are two credits for Vrisesendorp, both of which are from 'Puffin by Design' so the other one should be checked as well. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The first name is a misspelling of the second. Actually the 'artist' is credited on page [1] and I've corrected it. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I've corrected the interior art variants and updated the other title record. I'm pretty sure you'll want to reject those edits. Changes to the cover art title made through the containing publication can result in a broken link for the variant titles. I believe the software deletes the existing coverart title and replaces it with a new one without rebuilding the links. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
When that happens, there's a cleanup script that finds them. Each week I fix maybe one or two variant records with missing parent titles. Mhhutchins 18:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Rejected and explanation left for NobbyHH. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Weird Tales", Summer 2002

You verified this publication, which apparently has a story "What Are You When the Moon Shall Rise?". That certainly is the title shown on the magazine cover. But when the story was reprinted in Servant of the Jackal God, it was called "Where Are You When the Moon Shall Rise?". Could you please check the story itself, i.e. not the cover or the ToC, to see if that's what it was called at the story? Assuming it was, then we'll want to create one as a variant of the other, but I'm going to hold off doing that until you've had a chance to check. Thanks, Chavey 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely "What" on the title page, as well as the table of contents, page headings and the cover as you note. The title page is a two-page illustration with the lettering perhaps done by the artist, Keith Taylor. That may account for the title varying from what they author may have preferred. Of course, that is purely speculation. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, I'll make the newer one a variant -- even though it may have been the intended title. (Lots of authors change their minds about titles anyway.) Chavey 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)