User talk:Biomassbob

Archive of older messages

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


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

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


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

Hard reject for cloning The Collected Poetry of Robert E. Howard
Sorry, but I was forced to reject this because Title 1500154 is no longer in the database. Stonecreek 06:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

An Echo from the Iron Harp / The Gold and the Grey
Hi Bob. Those variants you want to break, what's up there? Did you make them in the first place? Thanks. --MartyD 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Ok, thanks. I accepted them.  --MartyD 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * O.K., I suspected that might happen, but tried it anyhow. I've found that usually add info to the notes and add variants without waiting for approval of the notes, but I can't do notes and merges without waiting for one to be approved first.  This pair of changes was testing the limits; now I know.  Thanks for putting up with my experimentation!  I'll take care of this poem. Bob 12:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In a merge, no matter what specific fields are kept from among the various records being merged, the lowest ID always survives (everything to be preserved from the records with the higher IDs is copied to the lowest ID's record, then the records with the higher IDs are deleted). So you could safely variant to the lowest ID, even if a merge is pending.  But merging as a separate step, when the records are otherwise quiescent, is least error prone.  --MartyD 13:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Marty, I had a loooong discussion (argument?) with Michael Hutchins about fanzine designations. With professional magazines, using just the date with the title is enough.  They may come out weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually, but they come out regularly.  Fanzines usually do not.  A few do/did.  "Crypt of Cthulhu" is the only one of those I've entered, although their dates are a bit bizarre.  I did not enter the first 75 of those, someone else did.  And used issue numbers.  "The Cimmerian" and "The Robert E. Howard Foundation Newsletter" are two I still need to enter.  All the rest (of those I have) issue irregularly.  I think it's important for someone using the data base to know if issues are missing.  Look at the issue you cite.  It appears with three other issues under "The Howard Collector - 1963-1965".  They are dated Summer 1963, Summer 1964, Spring 1965 and Winter 1965.  How many issues are missing?  None, of course, as shown by the issue numbers.  I suppose that would be clearer is instead of Vxny, I used whole numbers.  But it would weaken the utility of the data base not to any number at all.


 * Both the Vxny and the whole number appear on the title page, but the title page also has the ToC. The whole number appears on the cover beginning with issue #7 in the form "The / Howard / Collector / Date / # ".  If you think it would be better to use the whole numbers, I would have no objection to that.  As an aside, whenever I run into "This is the way we always do it", it reminds me of  Emerson's saying "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". Bob 20:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I freely admit to having a little mind. In an endeavor such as this, standards exist for multiple reasons: To make sure appropriate information is recorded, to make sure the same information is recorded the same way, and also to ensure future adaptability.  Suppose we decide to add fields for volume and issue number.  Because our "standard" says to put that information in the notes, it's a simple enough programming exercise to go parse the notes for that information and move it into those new fields.  But no one would necessarily know to go look for that information in titles because that's not how the information was supposed to be recorded.  You run into "This is the way we always do it" because it's too hard to make the software enforce all of the rules and standards, so we rely on teaching people the dos and don'ts that are not encoded.  My best advice to you would be to follow whatever Michael suggested; he's the most expert resource we have.  In my mind, if they started putting the whole issue number on the cover, they consider that part of the issue's title, so I would be inclined to go with that.  BTW, the Rules and standards discussions page is a place to bring up objections to/suggestions for making changes to "the way we always do it".  --MartyD 11:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

The Last Day
I changed the beginning of the quote in the notes from "Fear Finn..." to "Dear Finn...". Trying to save an edit-approve cycle. If "Fear" was right, let me know and I'll put it back. --MartyD 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fear" was correct. Bob 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I put it back.  --MartyD 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Merge candidates
Some things I noticed in passing: Thanks. --MartyD 10:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The two variants of this differ only in case. They could be merged, preserving the normalized capitalization.
 * Looks like there are some duplicate titles seen here.
 * This and this fragment starting "And so his boyhood" differ only in spacing of the periods in the elipses. An elipsis in a title should be given spaces between the periods.  I don't know that the normalization guidelines specifically address elipses at the ends of quotes, and I know this isn't done consistently one way or the other (it's also very hard for a moderator to see whether spaces are in fact present when reviewing submissions).  Where you've got it both ways, I suggest keeping the spaced one (unless these are different fragments, of course).


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


 * I'd keep the initial caps, unless it's presented as a quote. No worries about the others.  I know you're still working on things.  --MartyD 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Cool! Didn't know that.  Thank you! Bob 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I continued looking at the books on that list, I see that two other A.E. van Vogt books of yours are in that series as well, so I added The House That Stood Still and Slan to that publication series. Chavey 18:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Better and better! Bob 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Marty, the history of this poem is complex. The notes for version 1 ("We reared Babel's towers...") try to show this.  Apparently, the typescript was two pages, and the first publication (the REH Properties pub of A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems used only the first page of two quatrains.  The REH Foundation Press pub with the same title used the first three quatrains, presumably because the fourth quatrain is identical to the first, and the editor thought that the last three quatrains were another version of the poem.  Then The REH Foundation Newsletter published only the last four quatrains (the second page), and that version the editor of Selected Poetry labelled "version 3", not realizing that it was really part of version 1.  The first complete version 1 was finally published in The Collected Poetry.  Only version 2, the one in the letter to Clyde Smith, is really different from all the others; it was likely a first draft, since the first quatrain is so similar to version 1 (with Bab-ilu in place of Babel) and the second and last quatrain ended up as the sixth quatrain in the version 1 poem.  Fortunately, the howardworks website and the Notes section (p. 688) in The Collected Poems made all this clear. Bob 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me ask for some help with this one. I'm not sure what should be done with them.  --MartyD 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer is: Using a variant is not appropriate. They should just be separate titles, with notes describing the situation.  We do not currently have a way to record derived, or otherwise related, works.  Excerpts, abridgements, and splittings all result in appearances whose text is different from the full work, so we treat them as separate works in their own right.  If necessary, we include parenthetical disambiguation.  So if one page was published as "... [Version 1]" and the second page was published as "... [Version 3]", each of these should be titles and NEITHER should be a variant of the full poem (just as we do not make ABC (excerpt) a variant of the full novel ABC).  The net result is you should cancel that variant submission, and if I understand your explanation and the notes correctly, you should removed the variant relationship of The Builders [Version 1] (assuming it's page 1) to The Builders (assuming that's the full poem).  You'd also need to add some notes to those two partial titles.  --MartyD 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * p.s. The merge I have on hold is because it would delete the title involved in the Make Variant. There's nothing wrong with it, and I will accept it once this other part is straightened out.  --MartyD 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., I cancelled the submission for the variant, removed the Selected Poems Version 1 variant from the Collected Poems version 1 and "unmerged" the two A Rhyme of Salem Town version 1s. Once these are approved, I'll variant the Selected Poems Version 1 into the A Rhyme of Salem Town, REH Foundation Press Version 1 and add notes to all the less-than-complete version 1s.  I intend to leave the note on Collected Poems as it is.


 * As far as the merge is concerned, I don't think it involves the poem in the Make Variant, it involves another poem in the same pub (I surely hope). While the version 1 poems in A Rhyme differ, the version 2 poems are identical. Bob 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I don't know which title I tried to variant it to, so I'll just cancel the submission and resubmit to variant it to one of the titled poems. Unless I tried to variant that item to itself, I don't see how I could have tried to attach it to a poem of the same name, since this is the only place the poem was untitled. Bob 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Marty, a note on a merge. I merged two appearances of the poem "Destiny", version 2 that appear in Robert E. Howard:  Selected Poems.  This poem really does appear twice in this pub.  There are a lot of mistakes in this pub, this is just one of them. Bob 23:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * The same goes for your edit to Untitled poem "Flappers flicker and flap and flirt . . ."). --MartyD 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marty. I think this happens when I put spaces between periods in the ellipses where there were no spaces before.  The ") is off the end of the line where I can't see them, and I just automatically type extra ones in. Bob 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * Never mind, I see that Howard frequently used this form of address. Things we learn! :) Ahasuerus 19:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Howard had a thing with Gaelic, and apparently "Fear Finn" means "pale man" or "fair man". Bob 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * Great, thanks. --MartyD 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I checked this before I submitting the merge. "The" belongs in both.  The Cromlech version did not have "the" in the ToC, but did have it over the story. Bob 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Those pesky, inaccurate TOCs... Nice catch. --MartyD 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Again, I checked to make sure. The drawing is in a Howard letter, and the long form is under the drawing.  I suppose that the short form would be o.k. as an alternative.  This isn't a printed picture, it's hand-drawn, and the letter is hand-written.  Hard to say what the right "title" is, but I'm more comfortable with the longer form. Bob 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine. I wasn't trying to argue for shorter titles.  I just wanted to make sure the same label was used in all three places.  --MartyD 18:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Same thing happened with To Travis Clyde Smith.... --MartyD 11:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first one I understand; I had to merge two, then make the pair variants. Obviously, a two-step process.  The second one was done backwards, though. Fixed both. Bob 16:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Restoring the capital B is on my list to fix. Otherwise, I wanted the merge with the title I chose. Bob 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I accepted it and did the "b" -> "B" fix. --MartyD 12:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Wow! All instances of "Golnor the Ape" are the same fragment, there is no complete version.  There are a fair number of such fragments among the items written by Howard that have been published.  If Howard completed them, the usual indication on the incomplete item is "draft" (although sometimes drafts are complete).  This isn't my idea, it seems to be the standard for Howard studies.  Likewise, story or poem fragments that Howard never completed are usually (but not always) labelled (fragment) or (unfinished).  Sometimes the two designations are used for two types of incomplete items; fragments may be limited to items where pages have been lost or Howard put pieces he was working on in letters to his friends.  I have habitually used "fragment" on all incomplete items.  You may have noticed that there are "Untitled fragment"s among the Howard entries.  Sometimes these fragments were completed by others after Howard's death.  I have always thought it was a good idea to label items that are incomplete, even when that isn't necessary to disambiguate the item; you seem to feel that's not a good idea.  Any particular reason?


 * Our standard is to record the titles as given, adding parenthetical information to disambiguate, not to explain. We use the notes for explanations.  So if you include parenthetical information, someone will go looking for the "other" work(s) from which it is being disambiguated.  Unless a not-completed work was completed and published, there's no need to disambiguate there.  There's even no need to disambiguate if the work is completed by someone else: the completed work will have different author credits and won't be a variant.  If parts of the work have been lost, that's a little different.  We know it's not the full work, and we know the full work exists/existed, so pre-disambiguating seems ok to me, even if the full work might never be found or published.


 * For "Golnor" here, if any is published as "Golnor the Ape (fragment)", you should leave both and make one a variant of the other. Sorry, I didn't realize what you were doing, or I would have given you this feedback sooner.  --MartyD 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed a bunch of them, putting the information in the notes. However, I had to merge some first; I'll get those after the merges are approved.


 * Sorry, I had to go to work early today and didn't get to do much moderating. Hopefully someone else will get to them; if not, I will try to process them tonight, tomorrow morning at the latest.  --MartyD 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any thoughts about my note on "Something about Eve"? Bob 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I missed something. I don't know what note you mean.  Care to point me in the right direction?  --MartyD 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

Date of The Howard Review (second edition), #3 August 1998
I was going to object to your changing a date on a review from 1968 to 1975 that appeared in a publication dated 1968, when I realized 's date should have been 1998, not 1968, assuming the title is to be believed.... So I corrected the pub's date to 1998. --MartyD 14:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


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

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

So when you're dealing with a review that uses a non-canonical title for the reviewed work or a non-canonical name for the reviewed work's author, you have to go down one of two paths: See Help:Screen:NewPub. Since we have no The Swords of Shahrazar title record, the Roarke + Manteel review should be recorded against Swords of Shahrazar, with a note about how the title is credited. The uncredited review should likewise be recorded using "Swords of Shahrazar", again with a note, and then should be made a variant of the fixed-up Roarke + Manteel review (due to the variation in the review-writer's credit).
 * 1) If we already have a title record for the work that reflects the combination of reviewed-title wording and reviewed-author naming used in the review, that combination can be used as-is.  That the reviewed title is non-canonical will be handled/reflected by that title's being a variant of the canonical record, once the review is linked to the variant title.
 * 2) If we do not have a title record for the work that reflects the combination used in the review, we make the REVIEW record use the canonical form(s) instead and document the review's actual citation in the notes.

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


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

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


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

The Sin Eaters
I'm making several changes to The Sin Eaters (Lost Fantasies #9): Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Changing Fabian's name for the cover to the variant "Steve Fabian" as he is credited on page 2.
 * 2) Adding the title page illustration on page 1 (copy of the cover).
 * 3) Correcting the title of the Kellough artwork to "The Sin Eaters" (it was missing the final S
 * 4) Changed the Pendarves story title from "The Sin-Eater" to the variant "The Sin Eater" as it appears on the title page.
 * 5) Added interior artwork based on the credits from the original Weird Tales appearances.


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

"Fury", by Henry Kuttner (& C. L. Moore)
I added a cover artist and a few additional notes to your verified edition of this book. Chavey 08:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


 * I have on hold another merge that would produce the same sort of result (sorry about not noticing the first one in time). It wants to merge two instances of Austin's "The Howard Review #14 (Cover illustration for "Echoes from an Iron Harp", Grant)" -- one on p. 24 and one on p. 36.  So what you'll need to do there is give the second one a unique title and make each instance a variant of the cover.  --MartyD 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And a third one, for the "Etchings in Ivory" covers on p. 17 and p. 34 in that same pub. --MartyD 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * These are real duplicates in the pub, which I had not run into before the Howard Reviews. I guess the easiest way to disambiguate these is to add "[2]" to the second appearances.  I hadn't realized that this was necessary.  I understand your comment about the disambiguation not being needed once the variants are in place, but it is needed to find the variants in the first place.  When I form the variant, can I change the title of the item at the same time, or would I have to come back after the variant if formed?  Thanks for the info! Bob 18:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, [2] or some such will be needed. The sofware can't cope with two appearances of the same title, so you'd either have to enter them just once and note the second appearance or give them different titles (such as with [2]).  For renaming variants, you can't do it on the submission itself, but you can do a second submission without waiting for the variant to be approved -- neither varianting nor renaming affects the other submission (unlike merging, which will take one of the title records away).  --MartyD 12:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * The Illustrators was issued as part of, and simultaneously with, THR #4 (not #5). So THR #4 and The Illustrators are really two parts of THR #4. The merge was meant to show that.  Unfortunately, there is no way to add a note to the moderator on merges. Bob 18:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If they are two different things, they should not be merged, they should just stay separate. I don't know of a better way to treat this situation.  You could try asking on the Help desk.  --MartyD 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

The Howard Review #12
Hi! Had to reject this makevariant would have made it a variant of "siseneG" short story by Arthur C. Clarke.Kraang 02:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


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

Pride of Monster - Schmitz
Uploaded a better cover scan for this http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?996SFJuggler 04:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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

The World Fantasy Awards, Volume Two
Added gutter code to notes.SFJuggler 19:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Well, I'm consistent. In this case, consistently wrong.  Thanks, Willem.  Fixed. Bob 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I had to reject the Edit Title submission since it would have changed the title's spelling in every pub where it appears. Could you please follow the "add-and-remove" method outlined in Help:How to change a story in a collection instead? That way only your verified pubs will be changed. TIA! Ahasuerus 23:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Better wait until all primary verifiers have responded. I suspect all editions have "the", if so I can change the title record. Thanks! --Willem H. 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., done. I agree that it is most likely that all of the titles with "A" are incorrect, but understand the problem.  I will have to come back after approvals and put them as Flandry stories and variant them. Bob 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Approved, and merged the various novella entries. Don't add the series, varianting to Earthman, Go Home! has the same effect. --Willem H. 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kuttner's Thunder in the Void
I've made a few changes to Kuttner's Thunder in the Void: Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uploaded a new cover scan as the Amazon scan was slightly off from the actual book.
 * Changed the first edition statement from the copyright page to the colophon.
 * I added a note that the LCCN is not in the LOC catalog
 * I expanded the note about "Raider of the Spaceways" to make it clear that it is the original appearance that is in error.
 * Corrected the title of "The Time Trap". There is no hyphen in the title.
 * Replaced "We Guard the Black Planet!" with a variant title omitting the exclamation point.


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

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


 * Likewise The Howard Review #14 (Cover illustration for "The Riot at Bucksnort"). --MartyD 11:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; I thought I had varianted these to the lowest ID value, but clearly blew it. Thanks, Marty! Bob 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Virtually all of the cover art attributed to Jim should also include Ruth as a co-artist. I've started to fix this, and will continue as I can.  Interesting glitch!  Bob 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to completely remove Ruth first, then edit Jim's title to add Ruth (or vice versa). If you edit Jim's to have Ruth, too, while the pub still has a Ruth-only credit (now along with the one credited to Jim+Ruth), the attempt to remove Ruth doesn't work right, as it goes by name.  I have accepted your submissions and then fixed up:
 * They look ok to me, but please double-check. Thanks.  BTW, you can tell it's "right" if you see an  and  between the names in the various listings.  If you see a comma instead, it's recorded as two separate works, one by each author.  --MartyD 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They look ok to me, but please double-check. Thanks.  BTW, you can tell it's "right" if you see an  and  between the names in the various listings.  If you see a comma instead, it's recorded as two separate works, one by each author.  --MartyD 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They look ok to me, but please double-check. Thanks.  BTW, you can tell it's "right" if you see an  and  between the names in the various listings.  If you see a comma instead, it's recorded as two separate works, one by each author.  --MartyD 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They look ok to me, but please double-check. Thanks.  BTW, you can tell it's "right" if you see an  and  between the names in the various listings.  If you see a comma instead, it's recorded as two separate works, one by each author.  --MartyD 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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


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

Satan's World - Anderson
Cleaned up notes and added gutter code to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?28914.SFJuggler 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Genesis - Anderson
Uploaded scan of actual Tor edition of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?15202 and removed note about scan of SFBC edition.SFJuggler 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Two Publication Type Conflicts
Your following two verified publications have conflicts between their title type and their publication type: The ISFDB software expects there to be agreement between these two. When there is not, it doesn't hide the container type from the listing and doesn't place a Title Reference link in the publication information.
 * - COLLECTION vs. NONFICTION
 * - ANTHOLOGY vs. NONFICTION

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

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


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

"The Howard Review, #5"
In this verified publication of yours, there is a "Letter to Robert E. Howard, June 3, 1930", listed as by "Alb. Buttner, Editor, Argosy". This seems like it must really be by "A. H. Bittner, Editor, Argosy". Could you check whether this was a typo in entering into our database, or whether the original publication includes that typo? Thanks, Chavey 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


 * Locus says here that it is. (Scroll down to "Erickson, Steven".) Chavey 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. I knew that, but just didn't make the pseudonym (and spelled the last name wrong, of course).  Sorry. Bob 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you two. I have added the pseudonym connection and vt'd the one item as by Steve Erikson. Stonecreek 14:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard Merge & Variant Candidates
The Robert E. Howard bibliography has numerous merge & variant candidates. In each of the following cases, you have verified works containing all the titles: Would you please spend some time resolving these (merging, varianting, or adding notes about differences as applicable)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Days of Glory vs. Days of Glory
 * 2) The End of the Glory Trail vs. End of the Glory Trail vs. The End of the Glory Trail
 * 3) A Fable for Critics vs. A Fable for Critics vs. A Fable for Critics
 * 4) Freedom vs. Freedom
 * 5) The Guise of Youth vs. The Guise of Youth These are NOT to be merged, as noted in NOTES.
 * 6) Moon Mockery vs. Moon Mockery
 * 7) My Sentiments, Set to Jazz vs. My Sentiments Set to Jazz
 * 8) Not Only in Death They Die vs. Not Only in Death They Die
 * 9) Reuben's Brethren vs. Reuben's Brethren
 * 10) The Tower of Zukala vs. The Tower of Zukala vs. The Tower of Zukala
 * 11) Visions vs. Visions vs. Visions
 * 12) When I Was a Youth vs. When I Was a Youth
 * 13) A Boy, A Beehive, and a Chinaman vs. A Boy, a Beehive, and a Chinaman
 * 14) By This Axe I Rule! vs. By This Axe I Rule!
 * 15) Circus Charade vs. Circus Charade
 * 16) The Fear-Master vs. The Fear-Master
 * 17) The Ghost of Bald Rock Ranch vs. The Ghost of Bald Rock Ranch
 * 18) The Last Man vs. The Last Man
 * 19) Legend vs. Legend
 * 20) A Man and a Brother vs. A Man and a Brother
 * 21) Mr. Dowser Buys a Car vs. Mr. Dowser Buys a Car
 * 22) People of the Black Coast vs. The People of the Black Coast
 * 23) The Pigskin Scholar vs. Pigskin Scholar
 * 24) The Roving Boys on a Sandburg vs. The Roving Boys on a Sandburg
 * 25) Ten Minutes on a Street Corner vs. Ten Minutes on a Street Corner
 * 26) A Twentieth Century Rip Van Winkle vs. A Twentieth-Century Rip Van Winkle
 * 27) Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...") vs. Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...") vs. Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...")
 * 28) The Vultures of Whapeton vs. Vultures of Wahpeton vs. Vultures of Wahpeton; Alternate Ending vs. The Vultures of Wahpeton vs. The Vultures - There are at least two different stories in these, but there are possible variants to each.
 * 29) Wild Water vs. Wild Water
 * 30) Card to Clark Ashton Smith, postmarked December 20, 1933 ("Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas...") vs. Card to Clark Ashton Smith, postmarked December 20, 1933 ("Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas...")
 * 31) In His Own Image vs. In His Own Image
 * 32) Jazz Music vs. Jazz Music vs. Jazz Music
 * 33) Letter to Harold Preece, circa September 1928 ("Salaam: / Glad you enjoyed our reunion...") vs. Letter to Harold Preece, circa September 1928 ("Salaam: / Glad you enjoyed our reunion....")
 * 34) Letter to Harold Preece, received October 20, 1928 ("Salaam: / Your stationery is alright...") vs. Letter to Harold Preece, received October 20, 1928 ("Salaam: / Your stationery is alright...")
 * 35) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [April 23, 1933] ("I'm enclosing some of the latest views...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [April 23, 1933] ("I'm enclosing some of the latest views...")
 * 36) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. September 1930 ("Dear Mr. Lovecraft: / I envy you your sojourn in Quebec...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1930] ("Dear Mr. Lovecraft: / I envy you your sojourn in Quebec...")
 * 37) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1933] ("I was very sorry to hear of your aunt's accident...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1933] ("I was very sorry to hear of your aunt's accident...")
 * 38) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. December 1930] ("As always, your letter proved highly enjoyable...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. December 1930] ("As always, your letter proved highly enjoyable...")
 * 39) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. early January 1932] ("Yes, I enjoyed the postcards very much..." vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. early January 1932] ("Yes, I enjoyed the postcards very much...")
 * 40) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. September 1930] ("I am very glad that you enjoyed your visit to Quebec...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. September 1930] ("I am very glad that you enjoyed your visit to Quebec...")
 * 41) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 1932] ("Having read your latest letter with the greatest interest...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 1932] ("Having read your latest letter with the greatest interest...")
 * 42) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 3, 1933] ("Glad you found the cat article of some amusement...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 3, 1933] ("Glad you found the cat article of some amusement...")
 * 43) {{T|1496497|Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, {July 13, 1932] ("It is with the utmost humiliation that I begin...")}} vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [July 13, 1932] ("It is with the utmost humiliation that I begin...")
 * 44) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, May 13, 1936 ("I am indeed sorry to hear that you and your aunt...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, May 13, 1936 ("I am indeed sorry to hear that you and your aunt...")
 * 45) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [May 1934] ("Glad you're having such a good time in Florida...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [May 1934] ("Glad you're having such a good time in Florida...")
 * 46) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [October 1931] ("Thanks for the post-card views...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [October 1931] ("Thanks for the post-card views...")
 * 47) Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [received September 22, 1932] ("I read, as always, your comments on the Greco-Roman...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [received September 22, 1932] ("I read, as always, your comments on the Greco-Roman...")
 * 48) Postcard to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. February 1932 ("This isn't to flaunt my homely countenance...") vs. Postcard to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. February 1932 ("This isn't to flaunt my homely countenance..."
 * 49) The Question of the East vs. The Question of the East
 * 50) Sentiment vs. Sentiment
 * 51) The Sword vs. The Sword vs. The Sword
 * 52) Drawing of a strange cow vs. Drawing of a Strange Cow


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

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


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

Fritz Leiber - Jeff Frane
"http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?388349 is one of the print-on-demand copies that you can theoretically still order through Alan Bard Newcomer in Eugene. It was probably produced early-on at the request of library or collector.  There's no separate ISBN listed for it and it's not listed in the Library of Congress or on the copyright page of the trade paperback (as the other hardcovers were when they were issued by the press at the same as the trade paperbacks).  I don't know what the official policy is here but I would suggest removing the ISBN and going with a $14.95 cover price which was the last price listed for the hardcovers."

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


 * Whoever you are, I assume you know a lot more about these Starmont House books than I do. However, I see no reason to assume the book I have was originally purchased as a hardcover. I have a number of hardcover books that were clearly published as paperbacks and rebound by their first owners.  I think this is a likely scenario for the origin of my Fritz Leiber book.  In any case, it seems to me that the obvious solutions are to either remove the book from the data base or to add a note saying that this may be a unique item (produced from the trade paperback version), explain why you feel this is so, and leave the price and ISBN blank. Bob 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, you can use the "history" tab at the top of the page to see a history of the edits. --MartyD 12:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marty. I went back and added to the notes for the pub, indicating that this is probably a rebound TPB.  If one of you moderators wants to pull the pub from the data base, I'll have no objection. Bob 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * Wow, thanks Marty!! With the Howard letters, it's difficult to find all the variants, and moving the bulk of the letters into the series helps / helped find a lot of them.  As I continue to do the variants, I'll try to remember to remove the series I.D. as I go from now on.  These obscure software "glitches" sure add up! Bob 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see it made for a lot more editing, but thanks for taking care of them. --MartyD 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. I fixed up all of the ones where both the variant and the parent were in the same series, removing the series from the variants. I discovered in working with your submissions that if you have two titles in the same series and then make one a variant of the other, the series information remains on both.  --MartyD 03:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More editing, but kind of necessary to help find the variants. I also have to keep going back to the pubs to make sure of duplicates when the dates differ or I've mistyped the wording.  I hope I can get everything cleaned up this week. Bob 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Another one: really just "t" in this? --MartyD 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one: "fromBradford" with no space in this? --MartyD 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marty. All fixed. Bob 11:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Some more typos and other questions
In this, is "co u rse" correct, or should it be "coarse"? Also, is "rudealetter" correct? --MartyD 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

Bring Me the Head of Prince Charming - Zelazny & Sheckly
Added panoramic cover scan to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?273442. SFJuggler 06:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Friday night typos & questions
Here's tonight's set of questions and possible typos....


 * 1931 in this vs. 1932 in this
 * February 1931 is correct for all except "Dear HPL". I corrected the date, removed the letter from the content of "Dear HPL" and added the letter back to that pub.  Once approved, I'll variant the letter back in.  Incidently, it's obvious that the 1931 date is correct from content, and in "Dear HPL" the letter appears in the correct order, even though the date is incorrect.  Dates on the letters in "Dear HPL" are mostly hand-written in by HPL, including on this one.


 * "your" parody in this vs. "our" parody in this


 * Lowercase "zowie" in this vs. capitalized "Zowie" in this


 * Capitalized "Ho!" in this vs. lowercase "ho!" in this


 * Clyde + space + lowercase "sahib" in this vs. glommed "ClydeSahib" in this


 * "burning" in this vs. "buning" (no "r") in this

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


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

Midsummer Tempest - Anderson
Added gutter code to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?254838.SFJuggler 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * I'm not sure. The first line is "Who recalls or knows it once existed?--" (double dashes, not an emdash, although that may be an artifact of the magazine publisher).  It has two five-line verses. Perhaps they are variants? Bob 00:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That certainly sounds like the same poem. With the exception of "The Most Fantastic Magazine", the first letter of each line taken together spells out "Weird Tales".  The addition of one line isn't really enough to make it a variant in my opinion.  Unless the 10 other lines are different, I'll go ahead and merge the titles.  Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the same poem. Merging is fine with me. Bob 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Likewise, this one. --MartyD 13:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marty. Glad these letters are about done! Bob 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

Introduction Typos
The following titles are in your verified publications and I believe to be typos for "Introduction". Can you please double check these and either correct or, if typos in the actual publication, add notes? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduciton (Double Star)
 * Introduciton (The Complete Oriental Stories, Volume 3)
 * Introdution (Black Hounds of Death)
 * Introdution (The Exotic Writings of Robert E. Howard)


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * Okay, fixed. Stonecreek 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Four Edits on Hold
I have placed four of your edits on hold: Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By This Axe I Rule! & Untitled Story ("The sun was setting..."): The change for each is to add a "First published in ..." statement to a variant. However, that information is already inherently present via the parent's publication record. Adding such a note would not be a standard ISFDB practice. Is there something special you were trying to achieve?
 * Black Colossus: You are converting this from a shortstory to a novelette. However, this work is in publications that have been verified by many different editors. You need to notify editors when making changes that impact their verifications. In a case like this, you should make a central post and point the editors to that central discussion via their talk pages.


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

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


 * Submission approved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It isn't "appropriate" to merge by year, either, or at least not useful in this case (as with many fanzines). I'll cancel the submission.  Bob 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Friday night submission comments/questions
Tonight's questions/comments:


 * I have that big pile of new pubs on hold because the general format of "Series / Title" isn't the way we do things. I'm soliciting opinions on how best to handle the titling.  Do you care if I change them to whatever is agreed upon, or would you rather I told you what the thinking is and have you go and do it?


 * The suggestion is that for titling purposes we ignore both the "The Works of Robert E. Howard" series info -- which can be used as a pub series -- and the "The Kull Series" (etc.) and go with just the titles of the contained work(s) as the title, then putting these into the appropriate title series, along with the contained works (if they're not already there). So I would accept the submissions and remove the leading "SERIES /" from the titles, then put the new title into the series afterward.  How does that sound?  --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the solution I came up with as well, but I still find it less attractive than the original submission. The inclusion of "The Kull Series" in the title makes it readily apparent in looking at the author's list of publications that these pubs are related.  However, I understand that some change is required, so let's go with your suggestion. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to treat the series information as part of the title, you'd need to do: "The Kull Series: Xxx". But it gets a little strange when multiple works are involved in the single publication: "The Kull Series: Aaa / Bbb / Ccc / Ddd".  That said, it's ok to have the publication's title text be different from the title record's text, so the publications could always be changed later to that Title: Sub-Title format.  I will accept these submissions and do the series name removal (also on the ones Christian mentions below that he accepted).  I will leave the merging and varianting to you.  Once that's done, we'll need to review for proper series placement (do the series work last, so we don't end up with variants in the series).  --MartyD 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed merge of this Heroes and this one would change the author's name from Roarke to Roark in The Howard Review #5. Is that how it's credited there?


 * I accepted your submission that made Roarke a synyonym of Roark, where your comment said all of the Roarke misspellings occurred in The Howard Review #3. Does that mean the above was mis-transcribed, is really "Roark" in The Howard Review #5, and I should accept the merge?  --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No mis-transcription, the spelling "Roarke" is used in THR #5. Variant, not merge. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have rejected this one, and I made the "e" one a variant of the non-"e" one instead. --MartyD 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed merge of this Solomon and Sorcery and this one would add a "J." to Michael Keller's name in both The Howard Review #7 and The Dark Man. Is that how it is credited in both of those?


 * Something happened to this submission, and perhaps a different merge was done. Anyway, "Michael J. Kellar" no longer exists as a credit anywhere, and I was forced to reject your proposed pseudonym of that to "Michael Kellar" because the pseudonym is no longer present.  I have a feeling a proper "J." credit got lost somewhere.  --MartyD 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that. I pulled the submission, but thought that adding the pseudonym might be a good idea because that is the man's name.  No problem with the rejection. Bob 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed merge of this More Unborn and this one would remove the McHaney credit for the essay in The Book of the Howard Review, replacing it with "uncredited". Is it uncredited there?

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


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

Black Collossus
Both Contento for Conan then Freebooter and Miller/Contento for the original magazine appearance classify it as a novelette. I'd say we should go with that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok for me. Hauck 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.~Rhschu

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * Interesting. Thanks for catching my typo.  I made three changes to this pub.  First, I uploaded a new cover illustration that includes the spine of the book, since the artwork includes the spine.  Second, I changed the title type for "A Ringtailed Tornado" from SF to SS.  Third, I changed the page numbers of all the stories to 2 pages earlier.  While the text of the stories starts on the pages indicated, there is a title page for each story.  I don't know if it's standard practice, but it seems to me that these title pages are part of the story.  If this is a mistake, feel free to reject my submission.  Finally a comment about the copy count.  I've collected information on Howard pubs for a number of years, but unfortunately I never recorded sources for the information as I went along.  I have the number of copies of this pub as 1600, rather than 1800.  I'm not familiar with the source you cite, so have no idea of its reliability or where they get their information; I don't feel competent to judge which is right, 1600 or 1800 copies.  Since you can cite your source, I have no objection to the way you've phrased your input to the notes.  I'm going to ask a couple of people to see if I can get a conformation, though. Bob 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I probably wouldn't have included the spine, but that is a personal preference of mine and we don't really have a policy. I always do front cover only for my scans.  I won't quibble though and I'll delete my earlier scan.
 * I also don't know whether we have an explicit definition of what is the story title page when there is a page with just the title and the title also appears on the first page of the story. I generally go with however it is reflected in the table of contents in these cases, which for this book would have been the pages on which the actual story begins.  I'll post an item in Rules and standards discussions to see if we can come up with a standard.
 * Chalker/Owings is The Science-Fantasy Publishers: A Bibliographic History 1923-1998. Since it is listed in our Sources of Bibliographic Information I refer to it by the author names.  I would expect that the source of the copy count was from Grant.  I just now looked this up in Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's Over My Shoulder which puts the count at 1550 and I've added that note to that effect.  Chalker/Owings does have occasional errors and when references disagree, I just document all the sources. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, Ron, I'm impressed with your resources! About the cover artwork:  I really like to have the entire artwork copied where it is possible.  Usually, that's just the front cover, but sometimes it includes the spine and sometimes spine and back cover.  I used to have a small scanner, but I bought a larger one that lets me scan most dust jackets.  I also include the spine when the front cover is blank, as is true with some hardbacks without jackets, like the Heinlein Virginia Edition or Vance Integral Edition books.  About the internal title pages:  the reasons I like to use them as the first page of the story in collections are that it seems consistent with (1)numbering the first page of stories or articles with a first-page illustration as the illustration page rather than the text itself and (2)many novels designate the title page as page 1. Maybe a bit quirky. Finally, I suspect that the source of my number of 1600 copies was a fanzine like Whispers at the time of publication; a variety of fanzines that dealt with Howard material included such information in their news columns.  As with Chalker/Owens, not always accurate. Bob 18:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More Unborn merge question
Hi Bob. One question from above still unanswered, for a submission I have on hold: Sorry, I should probably do separate topics for each question to avoid having things get lost. Anyway, let me know about this one. Thanks. --MartyD 11:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposed merge of this More Unborn and this one would remove the McHaney credit for the essay in The Book of the Howard Review, replacing it with "uncredited". Is it uncredited there?


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


 * Ok, thanks. I accepted it.  --MartyD 03:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

American Fantasy, February 1982
There is a record for this issue in the database. Mhhutchins 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, I notice you don't credit Paul Gagne's photos or the book cover illustrations throughout the Straub interview. Is there a reason for this?  I cancelled my submission. Bob 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


 * Never mind. I just found the later submission and managed to figure it out.  --MartyD 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Both printed in the same month? Mhhutchins 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, you obviously didn't figure it out! A note to the moderator explained:  I used the date of the first printing so that the dates on the articles would be correct.  This morning I went back and corrected the date of the second printing, as planned.  I also copied the content of the second printing back to the first.  Maybe this was clumsy, but I have the second printing, not the first. Bob 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a less "clumsy" way, and an inquiry on the Help Desk would have revealed it. But it doesn't matter now, because the record has been corrected. Mhhutchins 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately the note to the moderator doesn't stay around to help other moderators, so only the one handling the submission knows what's going on (phrase used loosely -- I make no claim about knowing what's going on in general...). I'll have to ask Ahasuerus if we could keep the note-to-the-moderator in the submission history.  Seems like that would be a useful thing.  --MartyD 12:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Marty, I've done this before myself, most recently with Science-Fantasy Correspondent. I'm sure I've seen the technique used in other places, too, but can't recall specifics. I'll keep on adding the other pieces of Complete Marvel Tales; we can fix the whole thing all at once if necessary. Bob 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Contrary to my expectations, there's no de facto standard way to handle it. And no one objected to your approach, so no need to change anything.  --MartyD 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * An afterthought: An idea for serializing letters that may be suited to your intentions could be: Correspondence between Author1 and Author2, or something like that. Stonecreek 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An afterafterthought: On realizing the afterthought I am sorry to have rejected your sub.s: they could have been made to change quite easily after accepting. But for what it's good I have started a discussion here. Stonecreek 14:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I began putting Howard letters in series to make it possible for me to merge/variant them. It was virtually impossible for me to do this without doing some sort of organization.  This latest batch was just an attempt to pull the letters out of the general category of ESSAY so that the real essays were no long hopelessly lost in the wash of letters.  I can see why it would be a good idea to put the author's name in the series title.  I like Longley's suggestion of a general letters series for the author, with sub-series for major recipients.  If you moderators come to some agreement, I'll implement it for Howard's letters. Bob 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


 * I'll try again. That is the correct image for that pub. Bob 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Will change. The lack of comma was how the name was most frequently presented in the pubs.  I sometimes get confused when the database rules require the published information to be modified. Bob 15:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the balance between entering bibliographic data as it appears in pubs and standardizing can be tricky. For example, we generally use the form of the title that appears on the title page. However, if the title page uses all caps ("INVASION FROM MARS!") we change it to mixed case ("Invasion from Mars!") -- unless there is good reason to believe that some of the words should be in all upper case, e.g. if "MARS" stands for "Multiverse Assault Retroviral System", then the title should be entered as "Invasion from MARS!" And so on and so forth... Ahasuerus 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Sadly it is correct as entered. Bob 15:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I will update Notes. Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Good catch. Fixed. Bob 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I didn't know that. Thank you!  How about Blood Work then?  I submitted Blood Crime because Blood Work was already in that series. Bob 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the same situation. I have removed the series information from the CHAPTERBOOK record and moved it to the SHORTFICTION record, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I had the same question. The book says 1990, and gives no other dates. The only de Camp bibliography I have is the 1983 Laughlin and Levack from Underwood-Miller, which obviously doesn't cover 1990.  The Barnes & Noble version is identical to the Dorset Press volume, even to the dust jacket and book covers, and is dated 1993.  So could Dorset have published 4 hardcover printings between 1990 and 1993?  Seems really unlikely the book was that popular. Bob 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was definitely quite popular, e.g. we have the 25th printing of the Ballantine Books edition on file, and B&N generally reprints only popular books. However, since the printing is undated, we don't want to guess, so I suggest we enter the date as 0000-00-00 and document what we know (i.e. that the book says 1990, but it appears to be the year of the first printing) in Notes. Ahasuerus 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do. Bob 21:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * O.K. I normally only count back to the title page; when the front pages are given Roman numerals, that seems to be the usual practice. Bob 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But what is the point of counting unnumbered pages before the book's main text if there is nothing on those pages for which you've created a content record and you need to place it among the other contents? Also, if you feel the need to count unnumbered pages (nothing requires you to), you have to start on the first page immediately after the front loose endpaper (of hardcovers), according to the help pages. Mhhutchins 23:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Looks fine. Sorry about the mix-up. Bob 15:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 23:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you! Sorry I missed that. Bob 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, the process does get repetitive after awhile, which is why a second pair of eyes is good to have :) Ahasuerus 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Thanks, approved. Ahasuerus 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * Actually, both titles have the letters Æ at the start; I was shortcutting the correction by merging. When I entered the first, I wasn't aware of how to to create Æ.  Unfortunately, there are no notes for the moderator with merges.  Bob 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see! Sorry, I didn't realize what the intent was, but it's all fixed now. Ahasuerus 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again a clear difference between magazines and fanzines. I'm not aware of any magazine that reprints issues, but fanzines that become popular sometimes do.  I'll check the three reprints for Amra to be sure they say second printing. Bob 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, we have seen a few cases of bona fide magazine reprints, but, unfortunately, the current database design doesn't support them, so we have to squeeze them in the best we can. Ahasuerus 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * No objection from me. I also own The Spell of Conan, and I assure you the articles are the same.  I had to make the same change to "All about Eve" by Robert E. Howard, which was sometimes listed as an essay, but is really a review. Bob 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have approved the submission. I also discovered that there is a bug in the software: if you merge a regular title with a Review title, the resulting review will have a blank "Author" field. I had to edit the record and add Jack Vance's name to it, but otherwise everything worked out OK. I will create a Bug report on SourceForge shortly. Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I also changed the title date from 1961-00-00 back to 1961-12-29 since that's the date of the first publication. Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for clearing this up!! Bob 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * If I read the notes correctly, the non-red boards were "later", yet the cloning preserves the 1955 date from the edition with the red boards. Is 1955 known, or should the date be different or unknown?


 * One of the clones says "black  cloth  boards", but the notes (in all of them) say the black boards were paper. Which is right?

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


 * Interesting questions. All of the pages were printed at the same time.  The red boards were bound first, the others later, but how much later isn't known.  Nor is it known in what order or if they were all bound at the same time.  I suppose that the non-red bindings should be date unknown, although the notes should perhaps say that the time of printing was identical for all variants.  Currey says "black boards", no indication of paper or cloth.  L&L says black paper.  When I look at the boards, they did indeed seem to be cloth (and that's what I entered), but closer inspection confirms that they are paper textured to look like cloth.  Sorry about that one.  Thanks for catching these. Bob 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I fixed the one note to say "paper" instead of "cloth". As for the dates, it doesn't sound like there's an obvious answer.  With provenance for the 1955 printing(s), this seems similar to the challenge of dating various book club editions and having to rely on gutter codes; with that as a precedent, 1955 seems reasonable.  I leave it to you to decide what you want to do about them (I encourage you, however, to record some of the additional info you state here in the notes, regardless of what you decide).  --MartyD 14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * It seems we have two David A. Hardys, one the English artist and one about whom REH:TGR says, "David Hardy is Howardom's official El Borak and desert adventure expert, having written extensively on the subject, most recently in the Del Rey collection of Howard's desert adventures." See The Early Adventures of El Borak and El Borak and Other Desert Adventures, for example. Bob 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will see what I can do to tease them apart.  --MartyD 11:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked through my pubs and couldn't find anything. I have some people I can ask, though. Bob 15:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Fanscient, #11 Spring 1950
I'm afraid I rejected this submission by accident, rather than approving it. I apologize most heartily for the trouble and inconvenience that I'm sure I just cause. Dwarzel 02:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


 * For some reason I kept looking in "The Hand of Oberon" to find the "Q32" pub and not finding it. I don't know why I was so fixated on the wrong title; sorry about that.  I kept my submission (I suspect the other submission was mine as well) because the old one had the date of publication as August, which I doubt.  Based on the gutter code and publication date of the first printing, I would expect the date of publication to be September.  But because I don't know that, I left the date as 1975-00-00.  Bob 03:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the records that clearly show a relationship between the gutter code and the publication date, it's been established that the publication date is roughly six weeks after the printing date. You can use this proven pattern as a basis for estimating the month of publication of Doubleday printed books that have a gutter code. The best reason for doing so in this case is that it would place the later printing after the first one. Otherwise, the system lists a year-dated record before a month-dated one. Your call. Mhhutchins 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that. Thanks, Michael. Bob 17:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I noticed this, and am fairly certain that it should be Brosnatch. I'm also puzzled by the addition of "(logo)" to the title.  I don't think we need another disambiguation.  There is already "The Eyrie" for the full page version of the heading for the the column and "The Eyrie (variant)" for the single text column version which probably first appeared later.  For appearances where it is unknown which version of the Brosnatch artwork is used, we have used the same disambiguation as the letter column itself, e.g. "The Eyrie (Weird Tales, February 1938)".  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed the spelling. I noticed at least one of the cases where the issue date was used, but that seems to me to be a false disambiguation. I don't particularly care if "(logo)" is used, but using the date seems at best confusing to me since the illustration in each issue is the same. I intend to merge the illustrations when I complete the Weird Tales facsimiles I have (another half dozen or so), so I need guidance on what the title should be when I do merge them.  I presume merging will change all of the titles to one, wiping out the dated versions now used. Bob 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately (or depending upon how you look at it, fortunately), those disambiguated by date records are in unverified pub records. I suppose the editor who entered them had no idea if the logos were the same or not, so he was correct to disambiguate them with the date. But if anyone can confirm that the same art was used throughout all of these issues, regardless of its size, it should just be title "The Eyre" (that's what it illustrates, right?) without any disambiguation at all. Mhhutchins 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see now that there are two versions: The Eyrie and The Eyrie (variant). They appear in many verified pub records. Bob, please use the descriptions of each to see which one appears in your records and then merge the records you added to the database with the appropriate record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll merge the ones I've entered (which are in both the magazine and the facsimiles) as you suggest; they all have the identifier "(logo)". Based on Ron's input above, I would not hesitate to include issues earlier than and between mine, either, but the unverified issues do not show "The Eyrie" at all.  I'll use the earliest date I have, but have no idea when the logo first appeared.  Michael, you might also note that all of the unverified issues I've filled in also did not count the covers in the number of pages; I added the covers to the ones I modified. Bob 23:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed the change of the page counts in the ones you're updating using the facsimilies as your source. The source for these unverified records is unknown, but they probably came from the files of one of the very early administrators of the database, i.e. created before the database could be updated by the public (circa 2006). This was very likely before the "covers count" rule. Until each of them can be primary verified (or corrected from facsimiles), it's not going to do much harm to leave them alone. I could check them using my Miller/Contento (who uses the "+" to indicate a magazine which starts page 1 inside the publication, a system we should have used instead of the awkward system we use now), but personally I think it's very little value in return for the time it's going to take to fix them. Feel free to continue making the corrections when you come across them. Mhhutchins 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * The part 1 is not in the title, but the interview says it is continued in the next issue at the end of the article. I don't know if a second issue was ever printed, though. Bob 23:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest giving the title as stated in the pub, and then note the circumstances in the record's Note field. Mhhutchins 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do. Bob 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Paradox, Summer 2005
I should not have accepted the submission adding this issue of the periodical, as there was already one in the database. I didn't notice the duplicate until I went to add the title to an editor series. (Title record here.) You'll have to reconcile the two, delete one, and merge the duplicate content records. Mhhutchins 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I'll take care of these. I notice that the existing "Paradox" lists the historical fiction stories, which I did not.  Which form is preferred? Bob 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If a magazine/fanzine/collection/anthology is considered spec-fic, even if one or more pieces is not really spec-fic, we create a content record for it. You have the option of adding a note in the title record's Note field that the story is nongenre. (We don't have a NONGENRE type for SHORTFICTION, only for NOVELs.) If a magazine/fanzine/collection/anthology is considered NONGENRE, then we only add content records for the spec-fic pieces, even if they're borderline. Mhhutchins 23:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add the material and notes. Thanks, Michael. Bob 23:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * Thanks for the explanation. Submission accepted. And you can make a feature request to add a "Note to Moderator" field to submissions to merge. Mhhutchins 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * As I read the "Pub Type" descriptions, I agree it should be NONFICTION, even though there are three stories. The content on p. 12 is typed correctly; note the item on p. 8.  The two are both labelled simply "REH" by the artist, and the [2] disambiguates the two. Bob 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? The first one was INTERIORART. The one on page 12 is an OMNIBUS. Such a type inside an ANTHOLOGY (or NONFICTION) is exceedingly rare! >) Mhhutchins 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you thought I meant: that it was a typing error, when I really meant that the record was incorrectly typed (categorized). Mhhutchins 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you hadn't caught that error, I never would have. I have found that when I'm doing a string of INTERIORARTs, sometimes my hand comes back to the keyboard a little too far right, and I hit an "o" instead of an "i".  Thank you!  Bob 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


 * I would have done that if I knew the book club ID number, but I don't. It is nowhere on the book, and of course, there is no jacket, the usual place to find that number.  The only reason I know it's a book club edition is because that's where I bought it.  Perhaps you can locate one if you have the old book club circulars.  I received the book 6/2/06. Bob 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not a member at that time, and only rejoined in 2009. Locus1 doesn't list it. Is it possible that it wasn't a BC printing, but just an offering for club members of the second printing of the trade edition at a discount? That happens occasionally at the SFBC. Without the ID number or any other internal evidence of it being a BCE, it's going to be hard to distinguish it from the publisher's trade edition. Mhhutchins 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it lacks the color frontispiece, I suspect it was printed exclusively for the book club, or maybe book clubs if one in England also offered it, and not a trade edition. I have other book club editions without a jacket or visible catalog number.  Two of them have different-colored boards from the trade editions, the other is absolutely identical as far as I can tell (a tp).  I can also recall two tps where the only difference I can find is the number line showing second printing.  I believe in all these cases the publisher of the trade edition also printed the SFBC edition.  Interestingly, the price is seldom lower for the SFBC books; Amazon discounts enough that with free shipping and no taxes, their cost is actually lower than the club price. Bob 15:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Prion's name is on the title page and copyright page; as HowardWorks says, apparently Easton just put on their own binding and sprayed on the gold leaf on the page edges. The pub does not have the usual Easton colored frontispiece or acid-free pages.  I'll fix the date when I upload the new cover scan. Bob 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also replace the slash with an ampersand in the publisher's name. Otherwise, the format would lead a user to think that Prion is an imprint of Easton Press. The ampersand shows its a joint publication between two different publishers. Mhhutchins 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Looking at the page for "Steven Fabian" I see someone has been varianting "Steve Fabian" to "Steven". I'll start correcting the variants to the canonical name. Mhhutchins 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've left the three that were directly credited to . Please confirm that they're correctly credited and if so, please make them into variants of "Stephen". Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 00:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Lovecraft Studies #18
Hello. In verified pub, could you please check the last name of author of letter on p.32: Behrends or Behreads. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 05:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC).


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

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


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

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


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

Weirdbook 30 Combined With Whispers
Hello. I believe there are two verified records for the same title: your verified and. Thank you.


 * Please note that one is softcover, one hardcover. Please remember to sign your notes. Bob 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'll try to pay more attention to the actual records next time:) ForJohnScalzi 06:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

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


 * I'm not sure how to tell. I don't own the book.  The magazine gives no sources.  It is quarto, so they fit a lot more on a page; "Sea Curse" is 3 pages in this mag and 7 or 8 pages in several books.  And if it's abridged, it's not done by cutting off the end of the story.  There are seven chapters, with 5 "subheadings" in the seventh chapter (2 to 7 subheads in other chapters), if that helps. I guess I have no reason to think it's not complete. Bob 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It may be the same, but because it's printed in a MAGAZINE-typed publication, we'll have to make the record into a SERIAL type and change the name to "The People That Time Forgot (Complete Novel)", and then variant it to the NOVEL record. I'll reject the submission to merge and do those other submissions for you. Mhhutchins 03:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thank you.  I have a question about that.  The Howard essay The Hyborian Age was originally published in three parts in The Phantagraph.  Those three parts are now in the data base but not merged with the essay.  Can I just merge the three in?  A complication is that the publication of The Phantagraph was stopped before the essay was complete. Bob 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You can variant each of the three records to the record for the whole essay, but do not merge them (we'd lose their separate identity). There are also two essays The Hyborian Age, Part 1 and The Hyborian Age, Part 2 that were published in various Conan titles by Lancer Books. I don't know how these relate to the three parts serialized in 1936, but they should remain separate from those titles, yet varianted to the whole as well. I've noticed that "Part 1" is in the 1953 Gnome edition of The Coming of Conan. Can you confirm that this is the same piece published as "Part 1" in the Lancer pubs? Also, was "Part 2" ever published earlier than 1972? One last question: is the version published in this publication (starting on page 41), the same as the whole? And does it actually have the "Final Draft" appended to its title on page 41? If so, you should variant i tot the whole. If not, you can merge it with the whole. Mhhutchins 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Complex situation. The three pieces in The Phantagraph make up "Part 1".  This covers the "history" up through the time of Conan.  Part 2 is the "history" after Conan, and was never published by The Phantagraph.  The first complete publication was by the LANY Cooperative (Los Angeles something or other) in 1938; this pub is not in our data base, and details are not in HowardWorks.com.  The next complete version was published by the Pennsylvania Dutch Cheese Press in 1954 (William Evans for the Fantasy Amateur Press Association), also missing from both the ISFDB data base and again no details in HowardWorks.com.  Obviously both are very rare.  The first widely available source for the entire essay or story was Arkham's Skull-Face and Others in 1946.  The version in the recent The Hyborian Age from REHF Press is indeed labelled "Final Draft", and is the same as all the other printed complete versions, and needs to be a variant of them.


 * Ideally, I would variant the three parts in The Phantagraph into "Part 1", then variant "Part 1" and "Part 2" into the whole. However, the software doesn't allow nested variants.  So I will just variant all of the partials into the whole, unless you suggest otherwise.  I can explain how the parts relate in the notes. Bob 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. Mhhutchins 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This raises another question: there are a number of Howard letter excerps; should they be varianted into the whole letters? Bob 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. That would open a whole new can of worms. None of the excerpts in the database (most of which are fiction) are varianted to the record of their whole publication. They are considered individual works. The reason I suggested the exception for "The Hyborian Age" is that it's similar to how we handle SERIAL types which are varianted to their whole publication. Because ESSAYs can not also be SERIALs (which is restricted to fiction only), we can consider that the publishers of the parts of "The Hyborian Age" had original intentions of publishing the whole work serially. (It happened quite often with fictional serials when a magazine died before it finished a serial.) As long we add the necessary notes explaining the relationship, we can get by with this exception to the standard. But we should not use it as a precedence to variant other cases where parts of an essay (or letter) were excerpted, because the publishers of those excerpts had no intention to ever publish the whole work serially. Hope this makes sense. (If only we had a textual relationship function, this would solve the whole matter.) Mhhutchins 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes perfect sense. Thank you, Michael. Bob 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * That seems a reasonable approach. I was nervous about the pseudonym, too, which is why I only did the one article with that name.   Ran into ambiguous names with David A. Hardy a little while ago, where there seem to be three people with that name in the database.  Want me to do it? Bob 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be easier if I did it, so you wouldn't have to wait for moderation of the submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The 1999 story is definitely his: it was published in a periodical he edited. I'm also thinking the one from 1995 is quite possibly his as well. It was published in a sword/sorcery/fantasy semi-prozine. I'm going to take a chance and variant it to him. Mhhutchins 03:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that makes sense. Thanks, Michael. Bob 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * I intended to clone for a first printing once the submission was approved. It never occurred to me that this created a problem with non-primary verifications.  It seems to me that once primary verifications are made, the other verifications are kind of immaterial anyhow, but I'll take care not to create the problem in the future.  I'm really glad that only the verifier can remove his verifications now because I accidentally removed one of Bluesman's a couple of weeks ago when I got confused by a variant (I did notify him and apologize).  Given the Tuck verification, wouldn't it have been easier to approve the submission, clone it, then go to the submission and remove the "second printing" from the notes and the month from the publication date?  Bob 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what I did, but in different order. But that doesn't affect the Tuck verification which remained on the original record which is now a second printing. Maybe non-primary verifications don't matter (many editors would disagree), but when you change the data of a record that has these verifications, you have to deal with that fact. Would you not think it strange that there's a Tuck verification for a second printing, but not one for the first printing? And the primary verifier wouldn't be the one questioned, the Tuck verifier would. Mhhutchins 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I wasn't very clear. If you clone the submission, then leave the clone alone, but go back to the original submission and remove the "second printing" and month, then you have created a first printing with the proper Tuck verification.  Anyhow, thanks for taking care of another mess I made. Bob 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A moderator can't "clone the submission" or "remove" any data that's part of the submission. We only have three options: Accept, Reject, or Hold. Also, cloning a record creates a new record clean of all verifications. Anyway, it's fixed now. In the future, clone the existing record to create a second printing, leaving the original record intact. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I guess I skipped a step. I should have made the variants for the name (M. to Margaret).  The variants I made don't include all the lettering that was on the original covers.  That is, they are the same illustrations, but not the same as the covers.  Would they then be merged with the original covers, or variants? Bob 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Only merge if the title and author credit are exactly the same. If they're not, make them into variants with Margaret Brundage as the canonical author (artist). Mhhutchins 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * Sorry, but it is credited there as well, and the original entry of "uncredited" was incorrect. Again, it's tough to tell because there is no note to the moderator on merges.  Beyond that, I've seen a lot of cases where there was no attribution in the original pub (or the person who entered the data didn't know the attribution symbol), but then another pub identified the artist and his/her name was then entered in the first pub as author.  There is a pub about Weird Tales that apparently identifies the artist for all artwork that is sometimes cited; these illos are not varianted, but the artists name is simply attached.  So even if J. M. Wilcox's name wasn't on the Waterfront Fists illo, why would it be wrong to assign that name? Bob 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. We're more lenient with art credits than with fiction credits. You could add the right credit BUT you must note that the work is uncredited and give the source for the credit. I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * At least some of the stories are already in the data base from other sources. Should they be included? Bob 03:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * I looked through the pub and could find nothing. Bradbury also wrote a first draft of a screenplay with the same title, and it was that screenplay that was the basis for the chapbook.  The chapbook was produced by Terence McVicker, a book dealer in California, and Gary Gianni.  You might contact Terence -- he's nice guy, and I know he's aware of the ISFDB.  His e-mail address is mcrarebooks@earthlink.net; I don't know if he registered as an editor, but suspect he has not.  I've dealt with him a number of times, including at last year's Windy City Pulp and Paperback Show where he and Gary were selling the chapbook.  He might or might not have information on the German text.


 * The text of the chapbook isn't very long, there are a lot of illustrations. The test begins, "In the late summer of 188-, a train leaves Cairo heading across the desert, with a locomotive, fuel-tender, water-car, and three or four passenger cars..." and ends with, "A last flow of sparks appears above the hills at a distance and dissolve away in firefly illumination.  Then all is darkness, a sound of soft bells and music and..."  Let me know if your translation matches! Bob 20:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look into your fine book, Bob! I already suspected that the two texts weren't connected, and it was only a kind of desperate attempt to ask. My guess is that the essay probably was published in a fanzine or a convention program book that wasn't already edited into ISFDB, so I think it's really improbable that Terence has some knowledge about it: it must have been published sometime up to the early 80s. Obviously, Bradbury had some liking to the title, using it at least three different times. Stonecreek 09:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Done. Also adapted the notes a bit. Thanks! --Willem H. 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

REH: Two-Gun Raconteur #12, Fall 2008
Hello, In your verified could you please check the last name of essay author on p.45. Is it NielsOn or NielsEn. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC).


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

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

Missing Spaces
The following two titles in your verified pubs are missing a space after a "The": Would you mind checking and either correcting or adding notes if the typo is in the publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "NecronomiCon": TheCthulhu Mythos Convention. A Three-Lobed Burning Eyewitness Report
 * TheThirteen Best Obscure Stories from 'Weird Tales'


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

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

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


 * I wish I could have bought it, but it's out of my price range. I don't see the NONFICTION, though.  It's entirely fiction.  I was torn between CHAPTERBOOK and ANTHOLOGY, and I could easily see changing the ESSAYs to SHORTFICTIONs.  Classification is tough with background material the authors used in constructing their fiction.  I notice that the J. R. R. Tolkien background material for his fiction has no material labelled as NONFICTION. I'll change the essays to shortfictions. Bob 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been asking since Day One for a type called NONFACT ARTICLE. Until (or if) that ever happens, I have no way to advise you how to type these kinds of pieces, as it seems to be left up to the whim of the editor and the accepting moderator. Before you can change The Hyborian Age into shortfiction, you're going to have to discuss it with those editors who have verified it otherwise. Good luck. Mhhutchins 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As my copy has gone I can't really say what it is without reading it again. --Chris J 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is an in-universe essay. We seem to treat most of these as shortfiction (no length), so I have no problem with the change. --Willem H. 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I guess it changed since 2006. I entered the new website. Bob 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Always test a website before updating an author's data. Some moderators may not test links (like a certain anal retentive one we both know.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Trumpet #10
Hello! In your verified could you please check the last name of artist on p.31 (and in the title). Is it Nelson or NiElson? I suspect it to be this person, who had another piece in earlier Trumpet. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 02:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Very good catch! Yes, it is Nielson.  Bob 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That was quick! Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 03:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

Weirdbook 15
Can you confirm that the artist credit for the piece on page 46 of this record is correct? (We have records for a "Petterson" in the db.) Also, if an interiorart piece is not attributed to a work of fiction, it should be titled the same as the publication which it illustrates. The same would go for the pieces on pages 52 and 68. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks for checking. I'll create a pseudonym and variant it. Mhhutchins 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nov & Dec 2006 issues of The Cimmerian
Are these issues correctly dated? Unless it specifically gives a publication date of January 2007, we should use the date of the issue as the date of the publication. Mhhutchins 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The November issue editorial says that it's being published two months late. Both issues were received January 31, 2007.  Note that the index for 2006 didn't come out until December 2007.  Keeping up with monthly publication was apparently overpowering. Bob 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't base magazine publication dates on the appearance of the issue. ISFDB records for periodicals are based solely on the cover date. You can always record the appearance date in the Note field. I'm not going to force you to change the dates of these issues, as long as you know this is not the ISFDB standard. Whatever you decide, it should be noted to keep other users from asking the same question. Mhhutchins 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Hyborian Age" things
I accepted all of your "The Hyborian Age" changes, but two follow-ups: BTW, I hate giving fictional essays a "shortstory" length when they're not short stories, but it has to be viewed purely as a length thing saying nothing about the type of content. --MartyD 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SHORTFICTION should be given a length. I wasn't sure if it should be SHORTSTORY (ss) or something longer, especially on the later/finished versions.  You can also use SHORTFICTION (sf) for "unknown"/"undetermined".
 * For the serial publications: part 1, part 2, and part 3, I accepted SHORTFICTION, but I think you should instead use SERIAL. It is ok to use SERIAL for serializations of shorter-than-NOVEL sized works.


 * Marty, perhaps you missed the previous discussion (5 topics up), but you accepted the submission to change this record without input from all of those editors who had verified it as an essay. Mhhutchins 18:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we don't have a "Fictional Essay" type SHORTFICTION makes sense to me as long as others agree. The "Plumage from Pegasus" entries in F&SF are a similar case and I generally enter them as SHORTFICTION without a length.--swfritter 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry. Missed both.  Don't know how I didn't scroll down on that page, having checked the other changes.  I'll watch the feedback and restore all to ESSAY if need be.  --MartyD 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * The "F" is correct. The John R. should be empty now. Bob 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And addresses, titles, or affiliations should not be part of a record's author credit field. Mhhutchins 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * I don't look at rejected submissions. Bob 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? That's bizarre. May I ask why? Mhhutchins 02:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm seldom aware when submissions are rejected. Without a flag that indicates a problem, it just never occurs to me that something may have been turned down.  And I guess I just figure that if the moderator doesn't want the information entered I seldom care enough to argue about it.  I'm just trying to contribute and not interested in forcing my view on anyone else. Bob 15:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of being forced to be interested in anyone's opinion or viewpoint. It's a communication tool. In many cases, it only takes a few seconds to give the reason for a rejection and saves the moderator from having to "force" his view on the editor in a long conversation on their talk page. It also frees the editor from having to endure it. :) Now I know why I've rejected a submission, only to have the same one come up a day or so later. Mhhutchins 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Also his The Tritonian Ring and Other Pusadian Tales. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And his Solomon's Stone. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And with Fletcher Pratt, The Incomplete Enchanter. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And The Carnelian Cube. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And The Castle of Iron. I also added the subtitle. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And Wall of Serpents Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Revelations from Yuggoth, #3
In your verified could you please check letter author's name on p. 64 Willum vs. Wilum. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC).


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * "Of Things Beyond" was the title of the column Campbell, Jr. wrote for Unknown. Perhaps this piece reprints one of those columns and should be varianted to it? Mhhutchins 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's certainly the same author, although not a reprint. It's an explanation why Unknown folded after WWII, explaining the economics of magazines with modest circulation, and how they changed after the war.  But only the content of the article shows that it's the same Campbell; nowhere is the "Jr." indicated.  I'll do the variant. Bob 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Interesting. Since I submitted that "change", I have found a couple of other reference date in Zombies! that were incorrect.  Glad you could verify the February date. Bob 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem (except that I forgot to give this topic a name and it got mixed in with the previous topic!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * They are two parts of the single story, originally serialized. The second part was uncredited in Smith's fanzine, although the few people who got copies knew who had written it since they were all buddies of Smith and Howard.  I made the changes, but need to check for other copies once the changes submitted are approved. Bob 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Still, the question remains: Is the second part credited in this publication, regardless of whether it was uncredited in the original fanzine? I've gone ahead and varianted the two parts to the record for the whole story. Mhhutchins 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not being clear again. This pub presents facsimiles of the original fanzine.  So no credit. Bob 03:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

"The Midtown Trestler Special" or "The Midtown Downtown Special Trestler"?
Can you confirm the title given in this record? Mhhutchins 22:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Pieces by Sandra Garland in Dragonfields #3
I'm holding the submissions to merge the records into three different works. Just to confirm: are there only three different works by Garland, one which appears twice (pages 29 and 41), one appearing once (page 42) and the last appearing three times (pages 69, 87, and 97)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost. The first appears once, the second twice, the fourth once and the fifth three times.  These are "end of the chapter" figures, and each is credited on the contents page. Bob 21:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not how the record looks currently. There are only six content records in total with three names (not five). I'll accept the submissions in the queue and let you go from there. Mhhutchins 23:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The submissions have been accepted. Because of the merge there are now only three records in the visible record. I'm not sure if the software knows how to display a content which appears twice in the same publication without some kind of disambiguation, e.g. "Dragonfields #3 [2-1]" would be the same artwork as "Dragonfield #3 [2-2]" but a separate unmerged record. (I personally see no reason to create separate records for such "spot" illustrations which apparently serve no purpose other than to fill space. They don't illustrate anything in particular.)
 * This has never come up before so I don't know how to fix it. Right now, it looks like the records should not have been merged. You'll have to bring this up on a community page to determine if the behaviour is a design flaw or not. Mhhutchins 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Magic Highways
"Signed" implies that the author signed the book. Is that possible for this publication? If not, specify who signed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would that not be possible? Of course it's signed by Jack Vance.  He may be old, and I don't think he writes any more, but he is still alive as far as I know. Bob 01:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you could see me now, you'd see how red-faced this goof has made me. Blame it on a brain burp that mixed-up Vance with Farmer, another author who Subterranean is currently publishing a series of early story collections. As Emily Litella famously said, "Never mind." Mhhutchins 02:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The World Menders
Based on the update to this record, the publisher is "Morley" and "The Elmfield Press" is its imprint. But it appears from your description that "A Morley Book" may be the imprint and "The Elmfield Press" is the publisher. Is "A Morley Book" stated anywhere but the spine of the book? If not, then it's probably a publication series. Mhhutchins 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think my note said "A Morley Book" appears on the copyright page as well as the spine. See also The Light That Never Was that someone else entered and that I was the third verifier on. Bob 20:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So does it mention explicitly that Elmfield is an imprint or division of Morley? With few exceptions, we usually only use the title page credit as the publisher. Mhhutchins 20:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the copyright page it says "A Morley Book published 1973 by The Elmfield Press, Elmfield Road, Morley, Yorkshire LS 27 0NN, in association with Shire Publications Ltd." The two are clearly related, but I'm not sure how. Bob 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That clearly indicates that the publisher is Elmfield, not Morley. Mhhutchins 21:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I created a publication series for Morley, and placed 'The World Menders' in the series. --Willem H. 17:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Thank you. Bob 23:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bracketed roman numbers
In this record's page count field, you've added bracketed roman numbers to the page count. If any of the pages are roman-numbered, you should not bracket them. Bracketed numbers in the page count field indicates pages that have no number at all, and you use arabic numbers instead of roman numbers. Mhhutchins 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Crawford's The Garden of Fear
I added the Reginald and Bleiler citations to Crawford's anonymously edited The Garden of Fear and Other Stories of the Bizarre and Fantastic. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You should probably add the same material to the other two versions of the same publication, Ron. Bob 16:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can do that, if you'd like. However, I'm not really sure that multiple records are needed here.  Chalker/Owings states that reason the different colors is that Crawford ran out of stock while printing them.  They go on to say that most covers are green, with blue, yellow and red being less common. There was a single printing of the sheets numbering 48,000.  If I had been entering these, I probably would have entered a single record as this is really a single edition and printing, perhaps with multiple states. Personally, I wouldn't have entered multiple publication records for changes in the cover stock.  I probably wouldn't have even uploaded all 4 versions and linked to them from a single record.  I merely would have mentioned that the cover is printed on different colored stock.  There are numerous examples where less trivial variations are simply noted without new pub records (e.g. ).  I've never gotten a clear answer out of Rules and standards discussions about what our standard is for when a new publication record is warranted or not.  However, you should feel free to bring it up there again.  I chose the blue record, because that is where the Reginald1 verification that I was noting in the comments, as well as the other secondary verifications. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Intro in Balik #1
I accepted your submission, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the "Untitled introduction", unless, of course, that's actually its title. The help doesn't really anticipate untitled pieces, other than artwork, but if you look at the What to Include section of the help at the "Story Introductions" entry, you'll see there it calls for "Story (Introduction)" to used for an untitled introduction that's going to be entered standalone. My inclination is to apply that idea here, and name this piece "Balik #1 (Introduction)" and record in the notes that it is untitled. Read that help and see what you think. Maybe someone else will see this and chime in with an opinion. --MartyD 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Balik #2 content titles
I would be inclined to add "(Balik #2)" to Acknowledgements. It's one of those "standard" titles, even though it's uncredited and no one's going to be trying to distinguish one set of uncredited's acknowledgements from another.

Do you know if Mailing Comments is likely to be recurring, using the same title? If so, that's a good candidate for "(Balik #2)" to be added as well. --MartyD 11:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first comment, I just missed it the first time around. For the second, perhaps that was the plan, but I don't think Cliff ever published another "Balik" or "Simba" after #2 so I didn't disambiguate the mail column.  Perhaps it should be anyhow just in case there were additional issues. Bob 13:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Aftrica?
Just noticed "Af t rica" in this. Figured I should ask.... --MartyD 00:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And, of course, the very next submission I moderated fixed it. Never mind! --MartyD 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

C. M. Bird
I accepted your variant submission for Balik and the Siren of Alcathoe to Cliff Bird and made a pseudonym. Are you sure the M is right, and if it is, that this is the same Cliff Bird? All of the other variations have his middle name as William and his middle initial as W. --MartyD 00:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ouch! It is C. W. Bird.  I misread it because the fancy lettering used made the W. look like an M.  Still, I should have realized.  Sorry.  Bob 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of The Reluctant King
Can you confirm the gutter code your copy of this edition? We have several reprint codes, but none for the earliest SFBC printing and you may possibly have a copy of that printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The code in my edition is P23, on p. 532. Bob 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

REH Foundation Newsletter
Re this record: Why would a cover of a photograph be credited to the subject of the photograph? Mhhutchins 22:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the photo part, it's the writing on the reverse side. It will become a variant of a postcard already in the data base. Bob 23:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But you've given him credit in the Cover/Artist1 field. Why not create a content record for the card giving the page number as "fc", and not as INTERIORART but ESSAY? Look on his summary page now, and you'll see he's credited under the "Cover Art" category for this publication's cover. And the title record is of the COVERART type. That's clearly wrong. Mhhutchins 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable alternative. Done. Bob 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

fp
Re this record: What is "fp". It is not a standard page number. Mhhutchins 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Frontispiece. Didn't know what else to use. Bob 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Several options. You could leave the page field blank, you could use "bp" (meaning "before pagination"), or you could count the pages before page 1, add them to the page count field (using bracketed arabic numbers), and give the page number of the frontispiece based on that count, again using brackets. Mhhutchins 19:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Michael. I knew I could count on you for guidance!  Fixed. Bob 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Robert E. Howard Foundation Newsletter, Winter 2011-12
There were two different submissions to add the same issue of this title. I should have noticed it before accepting the second one, but didn't. You'll have to choose one, delete the other, and either delete the duplicate contents or merge the duplicate records. Mhhutchins 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Bob 22:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Blood Work
Is Ballantine credited as the publisher of this graphic novel on its title page? Books published under the Del Rey imprint usually show the logo above the Ballantine Books credit on their title page, and we credit the publisher as "Del Rey / Ballantine" in the ISFDB record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mike, it is. I surely do get confused about double publishers, obviously.  Fixed. Bob 15:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Death's Ragged Army
A novel-length work published in a single issue of a magazine should be titled "Title (Complete Novel)" and entered under the SERIAL type. I've made the corrections to this record. Mhhutchins 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pulp Review #22
Content in this record: "Foreword" or "Foreward"? Mhhutchins 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And in this one? Mhhutchins 02:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Foreword. Fixed. Bob 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Windy City Pulp Stories #7
I've made a few changes to your verified Windy City Pulp Stories #7. I see you've also verified #12 in this series, which I also picked up at last week's convention. I'll be making similar changes, if necessary, and will detail them when I get to that number. I did not pick up the program book from the 2002 convention. I don't know if you'd want to add it as #2 of the series, since the titling is different. Since I don't have a copy, it's your call. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm replacing the single interior art credit for Gianni with individual items.
 * 2) I've added interior art items for magazine and book covers reprinted in the articles.
 * 3) I've expanded the title of "Weridisms" adding the emphasized text as a subtitle. I've also added a second item for the essay, and added it to the Weirdisms series.  Somewhere in the archives of Rules and Standards discussions, I had previously asked about titling the other items in Weirdisms this way.  It is helpful in keeping them straight.  Especially the Coye items which are frequently reprinted.  There is probably another R&S discussion about adding both an essay and an interior art item for these sorts of pictorial features.
 * 4) I've added an item for the back cover collage.
 * 5) I've added the book to a Windy City Pulp Stories series.


 * Putting in the individual Gianni items is fine; I didn't feel it was necessary, but have no objection. I have put in magazine and book covers in the past, but have come to believe they shouldn't be entered, at least by me.  Mostly they end up in B&W instead of color, and for me, they lose a lot.


 * I will add #2 to the series; even with the altered title, it's really the same series.


 * Wish I'd know you would be at the Windy City, I'd have liked to meet you! I go every year, since it's right in my back yard.  I assume you will add #13.  I have #4, 5, 10 and 11 as well.  There is really no speculative content in #10, all westerns.  But I will be adding the others. Bob 16:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated #9 which I see you've verified since my earlier updates. Aside from adding the interior art, the only change I made was the title of the letter to Wandrei.  Since we don't have a title page, I retitled it to match the start of the caption which also is how it is listed in the table of contents.  I think it is OK to add #10 since Adventure magazine did print fantasy from time to time.  I'll probably add very little of the artwork though.  I'll continue to push through these until I reach the current book.  I did actually post on the moderator board that I was unavailable because of attending the convention, but I did that on Friday morning right before leaving for the airport.  I only spent Friday at the convention.  For me, it was mainly about the dealer's room, and I probably will attend future ones.  However, Worldcon is in London next year, which will take up a lot of my travel budget, so I may not be back until 2015. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've finished with #12. Aside from adding the interior art, and the individual reviews, I altered the title to the ERB interview, adding the quotation marks.  I also changed the name of the obituary to match its title page.  I added the price as listed on the book.  While it was distributed at the convention, it is also offered for sale from the publisher.  I changed the artist for the photograph of St. John to uncredited.  I can only suppose that you had intended the entry to stand for the painting that appears behind St. John in the photograph.  I don't think we've ever added interior art items for artwork incidentally in a photo, and we'd probably want to get a consensus on whether that should be done first.  Lastly, I've moved the page numbers for the essays from the page of their introductory artwork to the page they actually start on (matching the table of contents).  I've re-read the standard about using the page number of related artwork, but that appears to be in place for stories in magazines which can be presented a little differently.  One more to enter, and I can move on to other things.  Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ron, the only change I really don't agree with is changing the page numbers for the start of a story or an essay to ignore the leading illustration. I really feel that the illustration is part of the item. I'm aware that tables of contents often ignore the artwork, but I thought the standard includes the artwork.  I do use the art as the first page in books as well as magazines all the time.  If the standard is meant to be applied only to magazines, then it should be changed to say so.  But I think different standards on this point for magazines and other pubs would be confusing and unnecessary. Bob 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The help page actually does specify that rule is for stories in magazines. I would have to assume given the way it is worded, there was no intent to have it apply to books or even to essays.  Personally, I'd advocate matching the way the table of contents handles it, which is how I deal with separate title only pages that precede a title page with story text.  You can certainly open a discussion at Rules and standards if you feel strongly about this.  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Weapon Makers
Added LCCN link to The Weapon Makers. I don't know if you think it's worth fixing or not but Allan Halladay is credited as "Allan Halladay" for the cover (on the front flap of the dustjacket) and as "Allan W. Halladay" for the frontispiece (on the copyright page). SFJuggler 04:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the credit for the frontispiece to include the initial. Once its approved, I'll make it a pseudonym and variant it.  Good catch! Bob 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Impulse
Hello, I've replaced the amazon scan and added canadian price for your verified here. Hauck 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Impulse
Hello, I've replaced the amazon scan and added canadian price for your verified here. Hauck 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

[To] S. S. L.:Christmas 1920
Could you please take a look at the title of Lovecraft's "To S. S. L.: Christmas 1920" in your verified publication. The appearance in The Ancient Track is miss-titled and doesn't have the leading "To". If yours is likewise titled incorrectly, I'll adjust the title, otherwise I'll make the appropriate variant. It would also be helpful if you could tell me the length of the poem. The copy in TAT is 8 lines long, but there may be another poem with the same title that is 40 lines long (See this discussion). It would be helpful to determine if one of the copies was cut or expanded. I'm also leaving a note on the other verifier's page. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ron, it's titled exactly as shown, both over the poem and in the TOC. The poem is 8 lines. Bob 14:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomson or Thompson?
Hello, Bob! Just a request to check once more the credit for the artwork on p. 18 of this fanzine. Most probably it is the one and same as 'ATom': is there any signature visible?. If the credit is for Thompson, I'd like to set up a pseudonym. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is Thomson, credited on the TOC. There is no signature of any sort, but the nature of the cartoon is definitely in the style of "ATom".  Good catch! Bob 17:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Stonecreek 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thy Cryptic Power
A quick check: Is the first word of the title of 's "Thy Cryptic Power" really "Thy" rather than "The", which is how it apparently appears in other books? Ahasuerus 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It definitely is "Thy". The story begins with a poem attributed to William Davis Manly: "Thy cryptic power from beyond / That links thee to ye daemon-spawn'd / Will be thy curse when it hast shewn / Thee secrets better left unknown."  So "thy" really fits.   Since the other pubs are not verified, I'm guessing that they are likely incorrect. Bob 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking! I suspect that the misspelling comes from the Locus Index for 1984-1998 and 2001. I'll make the change. Ahasuerus 14:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal for a pseudonym
Hello, Bob! I assume there's some evidence to make Bruce into a pseudonym of A. B. Clingan, just want to check that it's not made by accident. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 14:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No doubt at all. He uses Bruce quite a bit in The Diversifier, just not often without his full name elsewhere on the article.  Chet (C. C. Clingan) does the same. Bob 14:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll approve immediately, probably the last action for today. Stonecreek 14:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Llewellyn Cabos
I had to reject the submission to make into a pseudonym of  which is already a pseudonym of. Please determine which of the names should be the canonical name, then make variants based on that decision. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With some reservations, I chose the longer name, since that seemed to be where he settled as he grew older. Bob 16:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the reasonable choice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Credit in The Diversifier #20
If Hoffmann Price is credited as "Hoffman" on page 6 of this publication, then the record should reflect that and a variant be created. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, if the review of Krozair of Kregen on page 35 of this record credits Drew Prescott as the author of the book under review, then the record should credit it as well. Because Prescott is an established pseudonym within the database, and not an error by the publisher or reviewer, then that's how the review record should give as the author of the work. Mhhutchins 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 23:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Diversifier #25
Please confirm the spelling of the editor and poet (page 46) (Froelich or Froehlich), and author (Frederick or Fredric) on page 41 in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And "Clark" on page 15. Mhhutchins 21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Spellings are as given in the pub, except for Frederick, which is given as "Frederic", which I've fixed. Bob 00:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And even that's wrong! Looks like this fanzine really needed a proofreader. Anyone who can't spell Arthur C. Clarke's name correctly should really consider another field of interest. Mhhutchins 01:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue was obviously problematic -- all the "editors", story reprints, the $1.00 boost in price, which really alienated distributors (shown in the following issue's letters) and the fact that this was the last bimonthly issue. There are only three more issues before Chet gives up on the zine, although he tries another for a single issue.  It has always amazed me the quality of the contributors the Clingans were able to attract considering they lived in Oroville, CA, which is really in the boonies.  Not like today with the internet. Bob 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an impressive list of contributors. They obviously had some strong connections within the field. These are the kind of records that make the ISFDB unique. Or at least I think they are. I don't imagine such detailed listings available elsewhere online. Thanks for the time and effort of entering them into the db. Mhhutchins 17:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another question about this issue: is the same person as ? Mhhutchins 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Bob 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad moderation
Sorry, I just rejected a good submission by mistake. I thought it was meant to be a variant but you were updating it. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins 18:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, bimonthly dating should be given with a dash instead of a slash. I've corrected the title field of this record. Mhhutchins 18:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K., but I think that makes it look like May through July, when with this bimonthly, it's really May and July. No big deal. Bob 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the reason I don't understand how the dash became the standard. It happened early in my joining the ISFDB, and without any discussion with the entire group, if I recall correctly. There was a group of editors who concentrated almost all their efforts on magazines and it was decided among this small cadre. If it were up to me, and if it had been brought to the whole group, I would have argued the same point: dashes imply a time period between the two months, while a slash implies a combination of the two months. Now it's too late to do anything about it, but it's bugged me for more than six years. Mhhutchins 02:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Artists' Forwards"
Is the piece on page xv of this book correctly entered as published? If so, please make a note in the work's title record to avoid the asking of the question by later users. Also, is it one piece written and credited to the three artists, or is it three separate pieces written and credited individually. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case it is "Forewords". There are two of them, one by the first artist and one by Jim and Ruth together.  They have the one title at the top of the page, and the two pieces separated by space only on that page.  Virtually all of Jim and Ruth's artwork and prose are by both of them.  I fixed the spelling, but don't know what to do, if anything, about the two pieces of prose. Bob 19:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest creating a record for each piece. Mhhutchins 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with this title. Mhhutchins 17:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct as entered. Bob 19:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And this one. Mhhutchins 17:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct as entered. Bob 19:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless you want to be asked this question repeatedly by other users, I would suggest updating the title records to note that the titles are entered as published. Mhhutchins 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Date and publication of a Mosig essay on Lovecraft
Hello, Bob! I do address this to you, since it's not clear when the primary verifier first in the slot will show up again: I have found the date for Mosig's essay Lovecraft: The Dissonance Factor in Imaginative Literature - it was stated in a german book. I would have changed the note in your verified pub. on my own, if there weren't something puzzling: according to the german source, the essay on p. 12 was published in The Platte Valley Review not the one on p. 3 ?! (see also the corresponding title note. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Christian, I checked the references in Crypt of Cthulhu more carefully this time, and found citations for each of the three articles in question. I've added these to the notes on the articles and removed the excess words from the pub.  Apparently, the one you found a reference for in the German book first appeared as stated in Crypt in Mosig's APA submission, and subsequently in the Kearney State rag.  Mosig taught as Kearney State at the time of publication.  The APA submission really doesn't count as publication, of course, but the essay appeared there first. Bob 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And one other thought: Maybe this special Mosig issue could provide us with some bibliographical information on this author - we seem to know nothing about him. Stonecreek 18:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of information about Mosig in that pub, particularly in the Joshi essay, focused on his Lovecraft work and his interactions with the three authors who wrote the essays. Apparently, he burned out on Lovecraft in 1979, shortly after he moved from Georgia Southwestern College to Kearney State in Nebraska and sold what was apparently a huge collection of Lovecraft material.  He was a professor of psychology, was married and had three daughters.  He also exchanged frequent letters with a large group of Lovecraft enthusiasts.  Joshi starts his essay by saying, "I should hardly exaggerate if I were to declare Dirk W. Mosig not merely the greatest Lovecraft scholar of all time but the central and indispensable figure in the transition of Lovecraft studies from the avocation of frequently incompetent fans to a real scholarly discipline."  I vaguely remember seeing a notice of his death somewhere in one of the pubs I entered as well. I suppose I could take a cut at using the pub to provide some information on Mosig. Bob 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And, hey, I have another question: if the essay on p. 48 of this pub. deals with Lovecraft, I'd think it would be a variant of this. Would it be possible for you to take a look into this matter also? Stonecreek 18:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It does deal with Lovecraft, and I suspect the two essays are the same. Bob 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You should change the date field of this record, which currently conflicts with the note just added. Mhhutchins 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for the first change to be approved. Done. Bob 23:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It could have been done in the one submission. Why wait? Mhhutchins 02:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As well as this one. Mhhutchins 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. I don't think the appearance in an APA qualifies as publication.  I'm always careful to say "first appeared", not "first published" in these limited-to-members docs.  I have copies of the first 200 issues of the REH UPA docs, and no intention of entering them into the data base. Bob 23:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So how can you explain the dozens of records you've created for publications which are "limited-to-members" documents? If these works "appeared" but not "published" then they shouldn't be dated, according to your previous statement. (The Date field is the date a work is published, not "appeared".) Your definition of "published" may differ from others' (and the ISFDB's), but it should be consistent. Mhhutchins 02:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The only item I recall entering that was "members only" was the REH Foundation Newsletter, but the REH Foundation does not limit membership, it's open to anyone who is willing to pay dues. The APAs and UPAs are not open, but limited to a fixed number of members, and may have waiting lists to join.  The Junto that first printed a variety of Howard material was even more limited in circulation, and items that first appeared there are not dated to that zine, nor are issues of the zine entered.  I may have made some mistakes on using Junto dates early on, but I hope that they have all been corrected.  Sometimes, items that appeared in the REHupa have been entered, but the copies of such items were produced not just for members, but also sold separately (although in limited amounts).  So I stick by my statement.  And I don't see that this definition conflicts with ISFDB's, which I don't think deals with APAs and UPAs. Bob 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Bob, and sorry for causing a misunderstanding: I mistyped my statement - I did mean biographical information (rather than bibliographical), such as exact birthday or place of birth. I tried his name on wikipedia and there was a page. I added the information provided to the author summary page, but it only had year and country of birth (and an additional forename). Thank you again for taking a deeper look into the matter. Stonecreek 06:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Christian, that's the way I read your comment! I, too, found the wikipedia item.  Unfortunately, the essays in Crypt don't give any more detailed information on the man. Bob 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but thank you for taking a look anyway! I have found that sometimes there's information to be found in sections like 'About the authors' or in magazines / fanzines that haven't found their way into the world of the internet. It would have been nice if there was something to be found in that issue.


 * By the way, I know what APA means, but I don't know what UPA stands for (especially the U). Could you explain it to me, the unknowing? Stonecreek 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * United press association. Why one is picked over the other, I have no idea. There is a brief history of these associations on the REHupa website. Bob 00:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the explanation and the link! Stonecreek 09:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard's Skull-Face and Others
I expanded the notes to Howard's Skull-Face and Others, noting some of the secondary sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard's Conan the Conqueror et al
I updated the notes to Howard's Conan the Conqueror. I also noticed that Reginald, Bleiler, Worldcat and the Library of Congress, all have the subtitle "The Hyborean Age" listed. You may want to see if it is listed that way on the title page and add the subtitle if appropriate. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Same updates and the same question about the subtitle for The Sword of Conan. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar updates to The Coming of Conan, but no issues with subtitles. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also King Conan, and the subtitle is already present for this publication record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar updates to Conan the Barbarian. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * and The Dark Man and Others. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * and Red Shadows. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * and Tales of Conan, with de Camp. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * and Conan the Adventurer. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * and finally Conan the Usurper. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ron, the subtitle appears on three of the Gnome Press Conan pubs, but not on the first two. I've added it to the two that did not have it (Sword of and Conquerer).  It appears on the title page, but not the jacket or cover. Bob 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Startide Rising
Re the page number of the frontispiece given in this record: "bc" means back cover. I'm assuming this book's frontispiece appears facing the title page like other volumes in the series. It can be placed by counting the number of pages from the first numbered page or counting the number of unnumbered pages starting with the first page after the front loose endpaper and adding that number to the page count field. Mhhutchins 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Should have been "bp". Sorry. Bob 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Earth
There are only six pages that precede the first numbered page in this book. We don't count endpapers (see the third bullet point under "Pages" here).So I rejected the submission to change the preface to page "[viii]". I also changed the pages to arabic numbers since there are no roman numbers in the book. Another thing: you shouldn't make a submission to change a data field (other than the Note field) of a primary verified book without discussing it with any active editor who did a primary verification of the record. Mhhutchins 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I thought I was cloning "Earth", not modifying the existing pub.  I guess I hit edit instead of clone.  Sorry.  The pub I'm trying to enter does have an extra page, that containing Brin's signature.  The binding and endpapers are fancier, but otherwise the interior of the book is identical.  I don't know the original price.  I've redone the clone. Bob 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've accepted the submission to clone. Unless you have a copy of each, remove your verification of the trade edition. You might also want to update the last line in the notes about six unnumbered pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Locus1: "Also available in a signed leatherbound limited edition of 300 copies ($125.00)." Mhhutchins 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do have both. Bob 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You should give the source for the price and the limitation in the Note field, unless they're stated in the book and you failed to mention that originally. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, I didn't have the price in my original submission. After you gave me the price (above), I did say in the notes where it came from.  Your welcome. Bob 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Fiction, November 1953 credit
I mistakenly accepted your submission changing the editor credit on Fantasy Fiction, November 1953's title record from Lester del Rey to Cameron Hall. There was already such a title record, here, varianted to that. If you think Cameron Hall is a real person and not a pseudonym for del Rey, then you should take that up with Swfritter, primary verifier. Perhaps he's the source of the pseudonym attribution. I've reverted the edit back to Lester del Rey. --MartyD 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem with the rejection, Marty. As I said, I didn't understand the note; I'll clarify it.  Is there any reason this pub shouldn't be merged with the other three issues of the mag? Bob 13:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't merge it, because the author/editor credits are different. The choices are to leave it separate and put it into the same series, or to make the Cameron Hall credited record a variant of the master 1953 title record that has all of the other pubs in it.  If Hall is truly a pseudonym of del Rey, then that would be appropriate.  --MartyD 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Bob 15:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Brandon Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul
I noticed that we have Brandon Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul listed as a novel and this it received a Hugo nomination for best novella. I believe our definitions of the fiction lengths are identical to the Hugo rules. The Hugo packet included a MS Word version of this book with which I was able to get a word count (31,975, excluding the postscript) and I've added that as a note to the title record. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to change this to a novella/chapbook. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Like the old Ace doubles, sometimes novellas published as short novels get mis-classified! I'll make the change. Bob 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Black Stranger And Other American Tales
You have verified and. They are identical except for ISBN and price. However, instead of both being trade paperbacks, other sites show the second one (the more expensive one) as a hardcover. Is the listed binding correct? -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch! The second is indeed a hardcover.  Fixed. Bob 23:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Brundage interview and article in Etchings & Odysseys #2
Could you double-check this interview of Margaret Brundage appearing in your verified Etchings & Odysseys #2. Your record states that the interviewer is listed as Eric A. Carlson. However, Miller/Contento has the interviewer as R. Alain Everts. Additionally, the interview is reprinted in Korshak and Spurlock's The Alluring Art of Margaret Brundage where it is again, credited to Everts as the interviewer. I'm going to go ahead and make it a variant, since the title varies slightly form the original. However, if yous is credited to Carlson, we've got two sources stating it is Everts which makes me think that it is more likely that he (Everts) really did the interview. If you agree, we should make the Carlson interview a variant of Everts under the canonical title as it appeared in the magazine.

I'd also like to check if Evert's essay titled "Margaret Brudnage" in the same issue is identical to the essay of the same title in the Korshak and Spurlock book. Unfortunately, there is not an acknowledgements page. The essay in the book begins "On December 9, 1900, the sole chile of Jonathan E. and Margaret (Loutit) Johnson was born in Chicago." It is only 3 pages in the book, with illustrations, and ends "And not long after Margaret's death, her last apartment on N. Troy burned down — seeming to co-operate in erasing all traces of Margaret Hedda Brundage." If the essay appears identical to yours, we can go ahead and merge them. If not, I'd like to add a note to prevent them from being accidentally merged. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I don't know where I got Carlson as the interviewer.  The interviewer is not identified except as "E&O".  Since Everts is credited with the leading essay, I suppose it's reasonable to assume he conducted the interview.  He is credited ahead of the interview, "...motivated the scholar and researcher R. Alain Everts to seek out some facts concerning [Margaret Brundage]."  The interview lead-in then becomes first person with phrases like "It was this interviewer's extreme pleasure...".  So there is no assurance Everts did the interview, but he probably did.  The essay has the same sentences at beginning and end as you give them, so I'm sure it's the same. I'll change the E&O entry to Everts. Bob 23:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've approved your edit and merged the other essay. Thanks for checking.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Shape Changer - Keith Laumer
Added publication date to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?287273. SFJuggler 03:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Planet Run - Laumer & Dickson
Added gutter code note and publication date to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?251126. SFJuggler 03:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Leiber's Night's Black Agents
I expanded the notes to Leiber's Night's Black Agents detailing some secondary sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * also his Gather, Darkness!. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * and Conjure Wife. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * and Two Sought Adventure. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ron. Bob 16:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Six folded sheets
Wouldn't that make the page count 24 pages? (A sheet folded in half creates 4 pages.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is referencing the May-December issues of the Fantasy Newsletter. Mhhutchins 18:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Michael. Fixed. Bob 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with new registration requirement
It was suggested that I ask whether you may have a spam filter on your email account which directs some email messages to a spam folder. If so please check that folder to see if the registration message may have been misdirected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I'm still not getting any definitive answers to what may be causing this problem. I've been told to have you check your account settings. click on the preferences link at the top of the wiki pages (you must be signed-in), and then click on the User Profile tab. Make sure that the email address you've given is correct. I'm not sure if that's going to do anything, but it's worth checking. Mhhutchins 18:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have sent Bob an e-mail at the address currently stored in the Wiki database. Let's see if he gets it... Ahasuerus 18:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This time it worked!!  Thank you! Bob 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. I hope we know what caused the problem so we can avoid it happening again. Mhhutchins 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I still don't know what caused the problem. I had to set the "e-mail confirmed" flag manually since the e-mail route didn't seem to work at all. Ahasuerus 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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

Merge / Variant Candidates
The following are possible merge / variant candidates where you have verified publications containing both works: Would you please resolve these (merge, variant, or add notes about differences as applicable)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Baal and Baal
 * 2) The Blades of Hell and The Blades of Hell
 * 3) Crazy Son and Crazy Son
 * 4) An Echo from the Iron Harp and An Echo from the Iron Harp - Per the notes on the first and on The Gold and the Grey, the second should not be a variant to "The Gold and the Grey". If there are two different versions of "An Echo from the Iron Harp", then the notes need to be clarified.
 * 5) Futility ("Golden goats on a hillside black . . .") and Futility ("Golden goats on a hillside black. . .")
 * 6) A Spirit on the Wind and A Spirit on the Wind
 * 7) Tars Tarkas and I and Tars Tarkas & I
 * 8) Xeroxing the Necronomicon and Xeroxing the "Necronomicon"
 * 9) Demon Wizard and Demon Wizard
 * 10) The Frost King's Daughter and The Frost King's Daughter
 * 11) The Mist and The Mist
 * 12) The Rats in the Walls and The Rats in the Walls
 * 13) The Road of the Eagles and The Road of the Eagles
 * 14) Spanish Gold on Devil Horse and Spanish Gold on Devil-Horse


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

de Camp's Dragon of the shtar Gate
Can you confirm that this publication is softcover? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Interview: Charles L. Grant, Part II (Part 2 of 2)
Is this how the work is titled in the publication? Otherwise, the disambiguation is unnecessary. Mhhutchins 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Fantasy Newsletter #44
A couple of content records in this are titled "Fantasy Newsletter No. 43". Mhhutchins 21:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Fantasy Newsletter #46
Perhaps a couple of typos in this record: page 6, "Tellur-Scope" for "Tellur-Scop"; page 7, typed as SHORTFICTION with an author credit the same as the title. Also, may I ask about the editorial: does the reference to Michael Bishop in the title mean that the piece is about him? If so, would it possible for you to scan the piece (at your convenience) and email it to me? Mhhutchins 15:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

Fantasy Newsletter #60
Can you confirm whether the note in this record is correct in giving the author's name as "Whitley Scott"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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

Crank Bitches column in FR
Can you confirm the author credit "Leat Braff" in this record? Other columns in this series were credited to either "Lea Braff" or "Lea C. Braff". Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC) :It's Lea of course. Fixed. Bob 18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Time-Travel[l]ing with H. P. Lovecraft
Could you double check the spelling of the Bloch essay in this book? If it is misspelled, we can merge it with this title. Otherwise, we should make one the variant of the other. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

Fantasy Review #64
About the editor credit in this publication: is there a credit for the reviews editor? Because this became essentially a reviewzine in its last incarnation, I chose to credit the reviews editor and Collins in the editor fields of the records I verified. Neil Barron was the first and others followed. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

Artist credit on It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy
Prof beard proposes adding an artist credit of "Richard Weaver" to your verified. The submission doesn't include any information as to the source of the credit. Does that change sound ok to you? I have it on hold for the moment. Thanks. --MartyD 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for failing to notify the change - I'm new here and am still learning. I got the artist credit from my copy of the publication. Prof beard 13:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


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


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

Fantasy Review, September 1985
I have a submission to update this issue, but there is no change in the record. Do you remember what you were trying to update? Mhhutchins 21:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


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


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

"Edmund Hamiltion"
When you have a free minute, could you please double check whether 's first name is really spelled "Edmund" in your verified The Fanscient, #2 Winter 1948 and Fantasy Crossroads #8, May 1976? TIA! Ahasuerus 21:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Both should be "Edmond". Fixes submitted. Thanks for catching these! Bob 00:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

MagiCon Program Book
I have a few questions about the way the MagiCon: The 50th World Science Fiction Convention Program / Souvenir Book was entered: I'm happy to make these changes. Let me know what you think. I picked up my copy of this program used. I hope you got yours at the convention. I've attended two conventions where Vance was guest of honor, but unfortunately not this one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) First off, I'm curious about how you arrived at the title "MagiCon: The 50th World Science Fiction Convention Program / Souvenir Book". I can't find the title printed in that form anywhere within the book, nor on the cover or the spine.  Most convention program books don't have a title page in the usual sense, and this one is no exception.  The two statements on page 3, including the copyright statement, refer to this as "The MagiCon Program/Souvenir Book".  If you agree, I'd like to change the title to "The MagiCon Program/Souvenir Book" with a note as to how that was derived.  Any of the interior art credits that take their name from that of the book should follow the same convention.
 * 2) I'd recommend that we disambiguate the possibly generic titles with the name of the book in parenthesis. These would include:
 * "A Message from the Editor" on page 4
 * "The Hugo Award Winners" on page 113
 * 1) For many of the pieces of interior artwork, you have used the title of the book rather than the title of the article or story that it accompanies. I'd recommend that we change the titles of the following pieces:
 * The Davis piece on page 4 to "A Message from the Editor (The MagiCon Program/Souvenir Book)"
 * The Duensing piece on page 6 to "Jack Vance: Author Guest of Honor"
 * The Davis piece on page 8 to "An Abbreviated Jack Vance Bibliography"
 * The Davis piece on page 10 to "Vincent Di Fate: Artist Guest of Honor"
 * The Duram-Nilsson piece on page 14 to "The Once and Future Harp: Walt Willis, Fan Guest of Honor"
 * The Davis piece on page 16 to "Spider Robinson: Toastmaster"
 * The Di Fate piece on page 19 to "Serendipity: Do, Some Thoughts About Collaborative Writing"
 * The Mohr piece on page 27 and the Davis piece on page 31 to "Out of the Void: "The Thing" and the Beginnings of the 1950's Film Cycle"
 * The Davis piece on page 54 to "Ratropy"
 * The Duram-Nilsson piece on page 61 to "The Gift"
 * The Mohr piece on page 93 to "Science Fiction"
 * The Mohr piece on page 97 to "Fandom's New Hope for Mars: The Report of the Synthesis Group"
 * The Davis piece on page 103 to "Choices"
 * The Gryniewicz piece on page 127 to "Worldcon History: The World Science Fiction Conventions from 1939 to 1994"
 * The Davis piece on page 146 to "Constitution of the World Science Fiction Society, January 1992"
 * The remaining artwork on pages 151-165 as "Members of MagiCon, the 50th Worldcon", with two exceptions. The Duram-Nilsson on page 153 and the Alvarez on page 158 could be entered as cartoons as indicated under Entry Type->INTERIORART.
 * 1) I think the authorship of "An Abbreviated Jack Vance Bibliography" should be by Hewett and Daryl Mallett. I can't find Robinson's pseudonym "B. D. Wyatt" credited either in the opening paragraph, or in the table of contents.
 * 2) For "Vincent Di Fate: Artist Guest of Honor", I'd recommend that we list the author only as Hendee. I would then add the two appreciations separately under their own titles as they appear on page 10 and 11.


 * Ron, I looked for the booklet a while today and haven't been able to find it. Why don't you go ahead and make whatever changes you feel necessary.  I'll continue to look for it occasionally; I always have a bit of trouble with locating the convention booklets because of the weaknesses of my "filing system", such as it is.  I also purchased this program used; I seldom attend conventions (the Chicago Pulp and Paperback Show is local, so easy for me to attend).  Your concerns seem reasonable, and I have no real objections.  Once I find the program, I may have comments. Bob 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Names of maps
If a map is titled you can use that title or give it the title of the work it illustrates. If the latter then add "(map)" to the title. The ones you added to this record, this record, and this record appear to be a mixture of the two options. Mhhutchins 22:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K., I think they are now fixed. Bob 00:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Man-Kzin Wars
The ISBN in this record has an extra digit. Mhhutchins 20:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure does! Fixed.  Thank you! Bob 20:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Jewel in the Skull
The first DAW Books printing of this title was in January 1977. Is there any internal evidence that the third printing was also printed in the same year? Also, can you get with Hauck about this record which also says it's the third printing? His has a later ISBN and a higher price. Must be another printing statement screw-up by the DAW staff. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with the date of this record. If it's not stated, the date field should be zeroed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, I zeroed them out, but I'm pretty confident they were printed soon after the first printing. Prices and ISBNs are identical between the first and third printings and other Moorcock paperbacks have closely dated printings.  I remember the late 70s was a time of strong inflation, so one would expect prices to rise if there was significant time between printings.  But I really don't know for sure. Bob 21:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add your thoughts about the possible publication date of undated publications in the record's Note field. It is also acceptable to give a date to an undated publication if the evidence is overwhelming and/or from a reliable secondary source, as long you give that evidence/source in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Length for "The Creatures of Man"
Can you try to estimate the word count on "The Creatures of Man", from your of the same name? Locus1 calls it a short story, and I can see it is well below 20 pages in a couple of the other publications in which it appeared. I'm wondering if your proposed novelette length for it is longer than is warranted. Thanks. --MartyD 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Marty, I certainly can live with ss for the story. Looking at several of the other stories in the collection that have been labelled ss, this one fits that size. There seem to be a number of rather long short stories or short novelettes that Myers wrote; I was rather surprised that there were so many "shortfiction" designations among the stories in the collection, but understand why.  Thanks for looking this one up! Bob 17:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A Clash of Kings
A few problems with this record:
 * Is the piece by John Howe shortfiction?


 * No, fixed.


 * The page numbers of the pieces by Charles Keegen and Graig Kreindler are incorrectly entered. If the Keegen piece is for the endpapers, there should be no page numbers and it should be titled "A Clash of Kings (endpapers)". And only the starting page of the map by Kreindler should be entered. Any circumstances about either can be explained in the Note field.


 * I've seen a number of cases where the endpapers were numbered as I did, but have no problem changing them as you describe. The Kreindler map is between pages 10 and 11, on an unnumbered foldout page; I said as much in the notes section.  I took off the page numbers, but left the note.


 * Is the Acknowledgments more than a list of thank-yous? If not, there should not be a content record for it. (See here.)

Mhhutchins 03:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Acknowledgments has no list of thank-yous (The Subterranean Press books do have thank-yous labelled Acknowledgments, and I didn't enter those as contents). The section contains bios for the author and artists and a bibliography for the author; I explained that in a new note. Bob 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the note to explain why there's a content record for the Acknowledgments. Mhhutchins 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Same situations with this record. Mhhutchins 03:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed the page numbering, added to the notes. Bob 18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales facsimile
Please check the publication date for this record? A $35.00 price for an 1936 publication? Mhhutchins 02:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 16:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A Feast for Crows
You used the wrong function to add this record to the database. You'll have to merge the newly-created title record with the one already in the database. Mhhutchins 02:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I knew that when I created the record. Merged and finished. Bob 16:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Meisha Merlin ed. of A Game of Thrones
Please do a verification of record for the lettered edition or give a source. Also, the "?" in the notes should be changed to indicate either a actual number (if known) or state "an unknown number". Leaving as it is looks like a typo. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with A Clash of Kings. Mhhutchins 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note added to both. Bob 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Amos Salmonson titles in The Diversifier
Just an FYI that I have varianted all titles to  in your verified issues of "The Diversifier". She changed gender in the mid-1970s. Ahasuerus 21:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Captain of the Guards"
The submission adding this publication was accepted, but it was missing a content record. I added that, and also added a colon to separate the title from the subtitle. Mhhutchins 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Michael. Bob 23:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Torch of Freedom - David Weber & Eric Flint
Can you take a look at your copy of Torch of Freedom? My copy differs in a number of ways from the copy you verified. a) My copy has 602 pages vs. your 512, b) My copy has disc marked "The Torch of Freedom Disk" bound in the back same as yours except that the library version is 20 vs. your 9 (the disk is copyrighted 2009). c) Mine has "First Printing, November 2009" vs. just "First printing" (there is also a number line "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" lower down on the page. Curious. SFJuggler 05:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed the number of pages; I'm not sure why I had the wrong number, but it was probably entered that way from the original entry (which was based on Amazon information); the page numbers are frequently incorrect pre-publication. I just was careless, and didn't check. I added the number line info.  While the full quote for "First Printing, November 2009" is the same, the important part is the first printing and I normally don't include the date here. The full number line is also redundant, of course, but I do usually add mention of it when it exists.  Now the disk: I looked more carefully at the number, and it still looks like 9.0 to me, but that honestly doesn't seem likely.  I see why you think it might be 20, but I entered it as 2.0.  I'm not sure that there is a decimal; if you are sure that there is not a decimal, feel free to remove it. Bob 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right. I stand corrected.  It is 9.0.  The screen printing is terrible on the CD.  I looked at it under a magnifying glass and the decimal point blends into the 9 making it look like a 2 but it's definitely "9.0".  I'm going to correct it in my records. ;)SFJuggler 03:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A Feast of Crows: Sketches
Bob, a couple of problems with your submission to add your verified pub to a series: as the PV could you double-check if the pub is not titled "A Feast of Crows" but "A Feast for Crows" (as the cover states), and I believe the series you wish to add it to is "A Song of Ice and Fire", not "A Song of Fire and Ice". If these points are both in error, I'll reject the edit so you can re-do the title first. Thanks. PeteYoung 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the "of Crows" to "for Crows". I was consistently wrong with this one in that pub, including in the notes. Bob 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would it be added to the series at all? I don't see any of the interiorart records for these books added to the fiction series. Why should a collection of these interior art pieces be part of the series? Mhhutchins 20:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the sketches were the basis for illustrations in the book, it seemed reasonable to designate the pub as part of the series. But if you wish, I'll just leave the series off. Bob 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submissions updating the title fields. You can cancel the original submission which Pete has on hold. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Seacon '79 Programme Book
I've got a few suggested changes to another Worldcon program book that we both own: As with the last Worldcon book that I asked you about, I hope you had the opportunity to attend this one. I working backwards in time entering these books from my collection. My first Worldcon was in 98, so all of these I'm entering are as a collector only. If you concur with the changes, I'll go ahead and make the edits. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Since the contents are primarily essays, I'd suggest we make this a NONFICTION publication.
 * 2) The titles appear to have been added from the table of contents and some are different than they appear on their respective title pages. I can detail these if you'd like or just go ahead and make the changes.
 * 3) The page numbers for some of the essays or stories are for photographs or artwork that precedes the title page of the story. The help page regarding this practice is specifically about stories in magazines.  Additionally, the table of contents for this book gives title page of the content item and not the preceding art or photo.  I'd also point out that the art on page 24 is specifically titled "Fritz Leiber's 'Our Lady of Darkness'" and doesn't really illustrate the story beginning on page 25.  I recall that you have previously suggested that you'd like to see the practice of indicating page numbers in this manner go beyond stories in magazines.  However, you should probably propose this on the R&S page.
 * 4) I'd like to add the "Hansen's Identification Guide to Selected British Fanzine Fans" on page 41 and the illustrations on pages 46, 63, 128 and 134.
 * 5) The illustration on page 47 is an advertisement for Australia in 83 and should be deleted.
 * 6) I probably would have entered the illustration on page 52 as a cartoon.
 * 7) I'd disambiguate the titles on pages 64 and 68. These aren't usual candidates, but almost every Worldcon program book has these titles, and I've found it expedient to do so.
 * 8) The Poyser illustration on page 69 doesn't need the [2] after that since there is no confusion between her illustration and the Litwinczuk on page 68.
 * 9) I'd suggest we do individual essays for Dreams of Empire beginning on page 71, Having it as a single essay makes it seem like it is a collaboration on a single essay.  Additionally, a couple of them have their own titles.
 * 10) Similarly, I'd suggest individual items for each of the pieces of artwork beginning on 81. I'd also add an uncredited essay for the text.


 * Ron, I concur with all your suggestions, except I still hold out for consistency with the illustrations leading the title page of the essay/story. These programs really are magazines, after all.  But go ahead and make the changes as you indicate.  The only citation I'm embarrassed about is the illustration on p. 83 - just blew that one.  Thanks for taking so much trouble with this pub. Bob 17:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The City in the Glacier
Hi, I'm changing the cover artist for this publication from Bechaudes (incorrect reading of signature) to Fernando Fernandez. Cover art is the same as for the later Ace edition (see Amazon image), which ISFDB does credit to Fernandez. Horzel 11:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching this one! Bob 15:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed A Small Colonial War edits
Hi Bob. See your note and its follow-ups. This is for your submission that I have on hold. Looks like maybe you edited and 2-verified the wrong record? These are the changes from your submission: Pages: [12]+289 Notes: "First Edition" on copyright page. Number line runs from 14 through 4. Cover artist credited on copyright page. C$5.50 LCCN: 89-91892

Content:

Principal Characters (A Small Colonial War) uncredited 1990-02-00   [5]    ESSAY

Order of Battle (L-Day + 14), First Battalion, 35th Infantry (Rifle) uncredited 1990-02-00   [9]    ESSAY

Akashi Continent, Suid-Afrika (Inhabited Region) uncredited 1990-02-00   [11]    INTERIORART

Assuming you agree, please don't cancel the submission. I'm going to point Teddybear to this. If the additional content and/or anything else applies to the first edition, I may accept the submission and just remove/revert whatever does not apply. Thanks. --MartyD 00:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Marty, it appears I have a later printing, although I'm sure the content exists in the first printing as well. I'll hold off doing anything until Teddybear and you work out what to do, then enter the 4th printing as a clone.  My problem was that based on the number line running from 4 to 14, I wasn't sure that was indicating a fourth printing, or if it was some weird kind of first printing set of numbers.  Based on Teddybear's reply, it's clearly a later printing. Bob 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Teddybear pointed out we have this 4th printing record. I never even noticed.  That was my "wrong record" reference.  Anyway, waiting is certainly fine.  We could accept and import into that, too.  --MartyD 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Teddybear agreed, so I accepted your submission, removing the one note about the number line. I was going to import into the existing 4th printing record for you, but I see it has a primary verifier Dcarson.  Technically, you should ask first, but Dana's a moderator, so you could probably submit the modifications and import and drop him a note that the proposed changes have been submitted for review.  If anyone yells at you, you can blame my inappropriate advice. :-)  --MartyD 12:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Artist on The Compleat Traveller in Black
I accepted your submission but changed the spelling on the last name from Embde m  to Embde n , since it looked like a simple typo. If that's not correct, let me know and I'll put it back. Thanks. --MartyD 01:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that it should be Embden, but the name on the pub is Embdem. I suppose that should be a variant. Bob 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for checking. I will put it back and do the pseudonym / variant thing.  --MartyD 00:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of The Gods Themselves
Could this be the same as your copy of the title? We don't create separate records for later printings of book club editions if the catalog number remains the same. Just record the gutter code and printing date in Note field of the original record. (See this help page for book club entry standards.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I must have accidentally hit clone instead of edit to add the gutter code. Sorry about that. Bob 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Limitations of the page count field
As you can see by this record, the page count field is limited to a set number of characters. You'll have to come up with a different way of presenting the page count field. I'd suggest going back to the original count of "227+227+225" and explain the extra pages in the Note field. Mhhutchins 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ouch! O.K., fixed. Bob 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not yet. There's still too many characters in the page count field. As I said above, there's a limit and you've surpassed it, so that last four characters aren't visible. Mhhutchins 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Biggle's The Grandfather Rastin Mysteries
This record (and its title reference) will have to be changed to COLLECTION. The NONGENRE type is reserved only for nongenre novels. Unfortunately, there is no way to designate a nongenre collection other than in the Note fields of the publication record and the title record. Also, please confirm the ISBN, which is coming up as an invalid number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 16:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bookcassette
Re Moving Mars: "Bookcassette" is not a standard entry for the publication format field. Please look at this list and determine if the format is described here. If not, leave the field blank, and describe the publication in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "audio tape". It is the particular type of audio cassette peculiar to Brilliance that lets them cram a lot of text onto a few tapes, but I guess that isn't critical. Bob 16:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Tower of Shadows
Re this record: Where does the interiorart appear? "ep" means an unnumbered page appearing after the numbered ones. (See here.) If that's the case, it's best to count forward from the last numbered page, and add those pages to the page count field in brackets. If you mean the illustration is on the endpapers, then the page number field should be blanked, and noted in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reflections of A. E. Van Vogt
Hello, .SFJuggler wants to change the title of Reflections of A.E. van Vogt to _Reflections of A. E. van Vogt: The Autobiography of a Science Fiction Giant: With a Complete Bibliography _, can you give us your thoughts on the matter here ? Thanks. Hauck 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like the change. If you agree with it, I can tolerate added words, but would prefer to leave the title as it is.  I really don't much care for adding subtitles to the pub titles when it isn't needed for disambiguation. Bob 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Thieves
You should have cloned this record to create a second printing, not change what is assumed to be a record for the first printing of the title. I'll create a new record for the first printing. Please keep this in mind when creating records for non-1st printings in the future. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this pub was shipped to me in October, I thought it was the first printing by this publisher, who was attributing the first printing to Gollancz. The book was on my Amazon watch list for months, and I ordered it within a week of it's becoming available.  I had no idea there could be a second printing in the same month as the first one.  Obviously, the publisher badly underestimated the demand, but responded quickly. So I do not make a habit of changing first printing records to second printings; this was a special case. Bob 15:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, you need to change the parentheses to brackets in the page count field and in the page field for the map. And are you sure the second printing was published on the same day? If not, it should be zeroed out, the usual way to date non-dated second printings. You can add a note about the date of purchase to narrow it down, but that should not be given as the printing date. Mhhutchins 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The month is clearly correct (I actually received the pub in October), unless the second printing was earlier than the first. Bob 15:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So if the current dates on the records stand as is, the second printing will appear listed earlier in the list of publications. I personally feel the standard of zeroing the date should be used for non-dated later printings, and making a note of its appearance date. But I'm not going to push it. It would be nice if the software could display non-day but month-dated records as published on the "32nd" day of the month. That way the pub would be listed after any day-dated records. Mhhutchins 19:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar situation with the numbering in the titles of the interiorart contents for this record Mhhutchins 23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 15:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Images for wraparound cover art
Exceptions can be made to the standards for file limits when uploading the cover image for a book with wraparound art (like ). The height should stay around 600 pixels (meaning the width can be more than 900 pixels if necessary.) Also, you don't have to stay under the 150 kb limit for the file size, and can go up to 200 kb or more depending upon the resolution. But try to reduce it if possible while maintaining the dimensions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Michael. I didn't know that, and resolution would be better in many cases. Bob 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Captain of [the] Guards"
There are currently two records for what appears to be the same publication. There's your verified record and this one which I suspect was created by SFJuggler. I'll leave a note on his page to come here so that the discussion will occur on one page. The differences will have to be reconciled, and one of them deleted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I would just copy over the cover scan from my entry and keep your verified entry in the database.SFJuggler 19:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare the title fields of the pub and the content record. They don't match. BTW, I changed the series of Biomassbob's from "A Song of Fire and Ice" to the correct series name. Also, I resized SFJuggler's cover image file from 892 pixels to 600. Using either image is fine with me, but once decided let me know, so I can delete the other one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I copied the cover scan from SFJuggler's entry onto my verified pub. I stuck with the title the way I entered it.  From my perspective, Michael can delete SFJuggler's entry at this point. Bob 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the title given on the title page (with the extra "the") differs from the front cover title, it would be a good idea to note that to avoid inquiries such as this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wesleyan Press ed. of Delany's Dhalgren
Hi, Bob. Your submission to update this record brought this edition to my attention. I never realized that there was a signed limited hardcover edition of this title. I've kept my eye out for a copy of the Gregg Press edition, never realizing there was a subsequent hardcover edition from another publisher. But prices for those have become so prohibitive that I'd given up hope of ever having this title in hardcover. I just bought a shrink-wrapped copy of the Wesleyan Press limited edition from a dealer on Abebooks.com for $120. Three other copies were selling from $250-$400. Can I ask if you can recall what was the original price upon publication or how much you may have paid for it? It can't have been much less than what I just paid for it. Mhhutchins 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I just looked at the Locus index which gives the price as $125. Guess I got a bargain! Thanks. (I'll update the record to add the price, giving the source, since you said that there is no stated price.) Mhhutchins 22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, I paid $76 for it ten years ago. My records show a list price of $65, but I don't know where I found that value so I didn't use it in my entry.  The $65 value seems more likely than the $125 you found, but I have no proof.  I have seen several copies of the Gregg version, but never for less than $650.  Too much for me, given that I have the Wesleyan book. Bob 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Still a bargain at $120, IMHO, considering it's a signed edition in a relatively small press run of a major title in the field. And much better than paying $1000 for a signed copy of the Gregg Press edition which had about the same press run. If you ever find the source for the $65 please don't hesitate to update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the price you paid is quite reasonable; it is a nice copy of the book. I suspect the dealer I bought my copy from used the $65 in his ad, but of course I'll never find that now. Bob 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Kindly Ones
Please confirm the ISBN given in this record. It's coming up as an invalid number. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Another one to check. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish they would just use ordinary numbers instead of getting fancy. Both fixed. Bob 00:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. BTW, I have all (but the last) of the SFBC editions of the collected Sandman. When I started entering my books, graphic novels were ineligible for inclusion. regardless of their authors. Eventually I'll pull them out and do a second Primary Verification of the records. I also have trade softcover editions of the first three which are not currently in the database. Do you have any of them? If not, I can create records for them. Mhhutchins 00:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, I do not have them. As far as I know, the SFBC didn't publish the first three -- at least I never saw them.  Gaiman's biblio without his graphic novels would be pretty incomplete, IMHP. Bob 01:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, those first three collections are the ones I have in the trade editions, but only because the SFBC never issued them in hardcover editions. But I don't doubt some publisher has. If you have an extra $500 lying around, the silver edition was announced for pre-order today and will probably be sold out by this time tomorrow. Mhhutchins 01:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! Now if I were a Gaiman fan (which I'm not), I'd be tempted.  Just as well I'm not; I just had to buy a new furnace. Bob 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a Gaiman fan, but I can find better things to do with $500! Mhhutchins 01:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Save the Veils!
Bob, it seems that the mentioned essay is or incorporates a review of the german edition of Starship & Haiku, because this magazine states that it was taken from Fantasy Newsletter, #61 (or is it more a review of the somewhat amazing cover art)?!. Would it be sensible to add a corresponding review (or possibly to change it to one?). Christian Stonecreek 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a misreading of the content of the column! Somtow does discuss the German version of the book, complaining about how misleading the blurb about him on the back of the jacket is.  He also comments that while he admires the artwork on the cover, he thinks the concept for it was a product of a misunderstanding by the artist.  He postulates that the German art director described the book as being "about Japan, samurai, and it has a lot of vales (whales, of course) being killed in it".  So the artist showed veils being killed with a samurai sword.  Somtow continued to discuss other recent misunderstandings in his relationship with fans, and finishes up talking about Return of the Jedi.  No book review in any way, shape or form. Bob 18:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the german version has exactly the (supposed) error of Goldmann's editor and/or the artist; there's no discussion of the actual content (wouldn't be meaningful considering that Somtow is the author). It is just presented in the reviews section of Science Fiction Times, but I'll change it into an essay and variant. Thanks for taking a look. Stonecreek 18:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion presents a lovely argument: "Why aren't authors allowed to review their own work?" Ha! Mhhutchins 18:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thinking about that, there seems to be no need to review the plot and style of a book, in fact there are hundreds of reviews which don't do it (or just retell the cover blurb). So what if I add a review to the issue of Fantasy Newsletter with a note what Somtow comments on? I could also add a comment to the essay using your summary above.
 * There are for sure reviews of their own work by some authors, at least under pseudonym. I remember coming across one not so long ago, but don't remember who it was.
 * And I have found a possible typo on p. 28 in this issue (Samtow instead of Somtow). Stonecreek 09:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the typo. I have no objection if you want to add the "review" and comment. Bob 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at this from an outsider, I don't see how an essay about the writing or the publishing of one's work could in any way be considered a "review". If that were the case, hundreds, if not thousands, of introductions, afterwords, memoirs, etc would be considered a "review". If Christian feels strongly that such a work should be typed as REVIEW, before going down that rabbit hole, I would suggest that he open a discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Mhhutchins 15:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly won't do anything like that. But there is a book review involved, in that it reviews some aspects (cover blurb, cover art) of a published book. There's no statement of quality of the novel involved, but Somtow does review the publishing side of one of his novels (and the translation is presented as a review: "Rezensionen" is the german word for "Reviews", what is I referred to: certainly we have hundreds of reviews with even less content or esprit in our database). Stonecreek 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've often read pieces in which the author discusses the "physical" aspects of the publication of their work. How this can be considered a review is beyond me! ISFDB review records are linked to titles, not to publications. If an essay only refers to the physical aspects of one publisher's product, it is not a review of the work (the linked title record), especially if the piece is written by the author of the work. It would be outrageous to consider such essays as reviews and link them to the title. Perhaps it would be better to push for a feature which would link an essay to the title record of the subject work instead of shoehorning the REVIEW function into doing something it wasn't designed for. (IMHO, that has consistently been the major problem with the ISFDB software.) Mhhutchins 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael, but there are already reviews that don't do anything then that: just take the re-publication of a classic novel (or a CHAPTERBOOK edition of a prominent story), where the only comment is on the editorial aspect and/or the art. If you think on it, there certainly will come numerous examples of this to your mind. Stonecreek 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the fact that it's written by the author be a factor in this? I'd wager my life's savings that S. P. Somtow in no way considers this a review of his work. Nor would the average user of the database. You're redefining the very meaning of the REVIEW function just in order to link the essay to the subject work. We overuse functions to the point of bursting here on the ISFDB, and I'd hate to see another use for the REVIEW type. The piece by Somtow is an ESSAY according to the function's current usage in the db. Adding another record to the publication record just to link it to a "review" published in another publication is wrong. I have varianted the review to the essay so you can see that it's possible to do so. This seems to me to be a better solution to the situation than creating a review record in the original publication. If you disagree, feel free to remove it once you've looked it over. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I also didn't want another use for the REVIEW type and so I tried to avoid a review of a cover art, which would probably the correct way to enter this (but this would be probably welcome to some editors for entering art reviews in general). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 18:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but rereading the text, Somtow in fact comments shortly on the quality of the translation, so that it should be considered a review. I made the appropriate changes, also to the notes. Stonecreek 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Necronomicon
Is there a dash used on the title page between the title and subtitle of this publication? Mhhutchins 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there is any separation in this work's title between "Afterword" and the remainder of the title (other than a single space as given here), or a change in font or size, or appearing on separate lines on the title page, a colon should be used. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Submitted change for the dash - sub below the main title. And there is only a space as shown for the "Afterword". No size or type differences, no difference in line.  I thought it was kind of weird, but that's the way it is. Bob 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So the book's title on its title page has a slash (/) instead of a dash? If the subtitle is below the title, the titles should be separated by a colon. Mhhutchins 00:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be a space before the colon. Mhhutchins 03:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1999 Ace ed. of Dune
It looks like the record you want to add is the same as this record. The only difference was the price, and an insignificant difference in the page count field, and a quick check of this record's source (Locus1) shows that it was incorrectly entered and has the same price as the record you want to create. I've corrected the price and now it matches your submission exactly. Please cancel your submission, and update and verify the current record. (Be sure to disambiguate the "Appendixes" which you were adding to record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you neither responded to this message nor cancelled the submission, I checked the current record and saw that you primary verified it. I'll reject the submission. BTW, you still need to disambiguate the "Appendixes". Mhhutchins 05:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to cancel the submission. Fixed the ambiguous. Bob 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for A Song of Arbonne
Before I make a variant record, can you confirm that the cover artist of this publication is credited as "Kraft" instead of "Craft"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Confirmed. Bob 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Variant created. Mhhutchins 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gutter code
In response to the question you posed in the Note to Moderator field of the submission to update this record:

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Publisher:SFBC_1980-1984#1983

Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K., now I see it. But the Y27 code seems to fit the publication date, and that one is both verified and earlier than the N34. Bob 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My original note did not insist it had to be "N34", only that it was in that range. It was a guess (look at the gutter codes of the selections around it), and now it's confirmed to have been a wrong one, not a bad one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A Calculus of Angels
Actually, the ISBN given in this publication is the SFBC-assigned ISBN, not the one from the trade edition (0-345-40607-9). As such, it should be given in the ISBN/Catalog # field, and the SFBC ID # should be given in the Note field. Thanks. You may also want to note that this is the first hardcover edition (unstated). Mhhutchins 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. Bob 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sea of the Ravens
It would be a good idea to disambiguate the generically title "Untitled Notes" in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Fixed. Bob 01:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've shortened the title to simply "Notes" with the disambiguation. While they don't have their own title page, they are given a title in the table of contents.  I also added the Worldcat and Library of Congress links.  Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Life Eaters
Based on word count alone, most graphic "novels" are not, novels that is. Sometimes, they're not even novellas. I made this record into a CHAPTERBOOK, adding a SHORTFICTION content for Brin's story. Also, there was no reason to disambiguate the artist's afterword. Only generically titled works should be disambiguated. This one seems to have a very specific title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K. Bob 01:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Spectrum 19
You verified a copy of Spectrum 19 -- I've made some changes to the Jeffery Jones image here and added a new version (mine is not 1st ed TP) I'm working on adding items to. MHutchins recommended I notify you of this. Susan O&#39;Fearna 05:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bravo, Susan. I've shied away from entering most fantasy art books that I own, except for the Spectrums, and there kept the details to a minimum.  I figured it was better to get the books into the database, and to come back later to add individual artworks.  I'm glad to see someone else filling in details. Bob 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have several of the Spectrums,... actually, I have an entire bookshelf devoted to art books... Susan O&#39;Fearna 01:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Susan, apparently we're a small minority of the editors, ones who collect fantasy art books. I have probably not a shelf, but a bookcase full of such books.  I also have a number of portfolios by Frazetta, Bok, Fabian, Brunner and others.  My next project will be to enter Spectrum 20, then detail the other Spectrums. Bob 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Facsimile of Weird Tales, Aug-Sep 1936
I made some changes to the original publication of the Aug-Sep 1936 issue of Weird Tales and noted that you had verified the facsimile of the same issue. Assuming it is a true facsimile, you may want to consider the following changes, or, if you agree with all of them, you could delete the entire contents from the facsimile and import from the original issue: Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The De Lay illustration on page 173 should probably be titled "Werewolf of the Sahara".
 * 2) The Derleth and Schorer story should credited Derleth as "August W. Derleth".
 * 3) The Baltadonis letter should be credited as "John V. Baltadonis"
 * 4) The Eyrie should not be credited to Wright. Although he almost certainly wrote "The Eyrie", he is not credited.  I've always credited these to "The Editor" as result of these lines from this help page: 'If a work is attributed to a role, e.g. "Editor" or "Publisher", then use that name as the author, even if you have clear evidence as to who the author really is. For example, editorials in magazines were frequently uncredited, or credited to "The Editor"; these should be entered with the Author field set to "The Editor".'
 * 5) The same help page referenced above, in this section, allows us to append the title of the letter at the editor's option. I've appended the titles in the original issue.  If you don't care to use the same form, we should probably make a variant relationship between the two title records.


 * Easiest thing was to delete and import. Done. Bob 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blood Crime
I added the Canada price to BungalowBarbara 22:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! Bob 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette IV
The piece on page 189 of this publication looks unusual. A two-page serial titled "Continuing Serials"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a section title. There is only one "continuing serial" here, the next item in the contents by David Carrico. After that item is another section titled "Fact" with a number of items. I wasn't (and still am not) sure how to handle this. Bob 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't create content records for the title pages of book sections unless it contains text other than a title, and even then rarely. It probably should be removed from the publication and deleted from the db. Mhhutchins 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

For a Few Demons More
Added information to notes of (cover artist credit, publication code, Canada price) and changed image link to more stable link (same image, just different link). No deletions or changes. BungalowBarbara 03:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! In notice you didn't verify the pub.  Why not? Bob 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The MagiCon Program/Souvenir Book
Can you confirm the spelling of the artist credit for the work on page 10 of this publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll check when I can find the pub. My alleged filing system for convention programs is totally lame; I looked in the obvious places, but no luck yet.  I will keep looking. Bob 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you find it and it's entered as credited, please make it into a variant for Wayne Barlowe. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My copy was close at hand. It's as credited and I've built the variant. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Great Simolean Caper"
Are you certain this is an ESSAY and not SHORTFICTION? I merged the essay record you entered with the one that was already in the database as a short story. The Wikipedia article describes it as a short story also. Mhhutchins 23:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes it is fiction. I was under some pressure when I was entering that pub, and just tagged all the contents as essays.  The thing that bothered me about the three previously published items in the pub is that they are all reported to be "different" versions, but there is no information on how they are different. Bob 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't create variants based on textual changes, but only if the author credit or title of the story changes. You can always note (as you did) any textual differences in the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Midnight Sun
Please confirm the ISBN given in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wagner poems
You're entering original publication data in the Synopsis field. It should go in the Note field. Mhhutchins 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved them. Thanks, Mike. Bob 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Harvest
I was unable to either accept or reject the submission to clone a new record of Red Harvest. You merged one of its contents in a previous submission, and before that submission was accepted, made this submission to clone a record that contains a title (the poem "Midnight Sun") which no longer exists. (Merging deletes the newer of the two records from the database.) In the future, be conscious of subsequent changes to content records for which submissions are still in the queue. Now that the original merge submission has been accepted, you can make a new submission to clone the pub record. Sorry. Mhhutchins 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rats! I hesitated to create the clone, but then decided that since I had not edited the original pub, but only the contents in it, that the clone would be o.k.  Shows what I know. Bob 19:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Derleth's Over the Edge
I found a source for the month of publication for August Derleth's Over the Edge and I have added it and a note as to the source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, neat! Thanks, Ron! Bob 19:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Book of the Sixth World Fantasy Convention 1980
Could you take a look at this conversation. We'd like your opinion on the inclusion of the pocket program in the cover scan (or indeed any of the other changes that were made). Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Two Sort-of Adventures"
Can you check to see if the piece in this book is actually an essay, or a pastiche of Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories already in the database with the same title as SHORTFICTION? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is indeed SHORTFICTION. Fixed, and varianted to Richard A. Lupoff.  I'll leave it to you to merge. Bob 20:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merging it with the other record (the one I linked to) would have done both in one submission. I'll fix it. Mhhutchins 21:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Pride of Bear Creek
I added Glenn Lord's essay to the 1966 printing of The Pride of Bear Creek. I also noticed that the story that had been listed as "The Conquerin' Hero of the Humboldts" is actually presented as "The Conquerin' Hero of the Humbolts". This caused me to check the 1977 printing which also lists the story as "Humbolts". I've fixed both publications. FictionMags does have the original appearance as "Humboldts", so I've left that as the canonical title. I notice that you have several other collections that contain the story and you may want to double check in case more than just the Grant printings have the variant title. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting case, Ron. The four Complete Action Stories, two from Paul Herman, two from Wildside, all show "Humboldts" as the story title and as page header over the story.  But they all show "Humbolts" in the ToC!  The website HowardWorks uses only "Humbolts"; I will contact the editor of that site about the spelling.  I've corrected the spelling to "Humbolts" in the two U. of Nebraska pubs, and will have to come back and variant them once they are approved.  I also note that Howard's original title was completely different! Thank you for pointing this one out. Bob 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Laumer's Galactic Odyssey
I'm holding a submission from an editor who is using a secondary source to add cover art credit to this primary verified record. Can you confirm that is credited with the jacket design? Since this cover is more design than art, it seems to me that it would be OK to credit him in the Cover Artist field. Would you agree? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can indeed confirm Weaver is credited on the front jacket flap. I have no problem with putting his name in the Cover Artist field as long as the notes indicate he did the cover design (and hopefully note the credit is given on the front jacket flap). Bob 16:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And All the Stars a Stage
User Horzel found the artist for this pub here. I added Enric to the record and adapted the notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Outstanding! Thanks, Willem. Bob 23:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Technokill
I added cover art credit (need to add notes, too...) for Technokill, which you verified, albeit as 2nd Primary. Susan O&#39;Fearna 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mike won't approve it till you say it's OK... the cover art appeared in Jean Pierre Targete's art-book Illumina, so even though there's no credit IN the book, I know the art is by him... Please say it's OK ^_^ S Susan O&#39;Fearna 01:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I kept looking at the pub and not seeing the credit! I think it's great you have found the artist, so it's very much o.k. with me.  Sorry I hung things up. Bob 19:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ardor on Aros
Have replaced Amazon Link to cover of Ardor on Aros with a scan of a verified copy http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?244361 Prof beard 14:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC) :O.K. Bob 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Her Strong Enchantments Failing"
Is their any biographical information given about the author of the piece on page 85 of this publication? We have a who started contributing to fanzines shortly after this piece's publication, occasionally dropping the middle initial. Because it's a relatively common name, I'm guessing there's a strong possibility that it may be two different people. Patrick L. McGuire wrote much about Russian science fiction, so perhaps the essay's content may be a signal to his identity. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. Mhhutchins 03:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The author is given as "Patrick L. McGuire" over the essay, just Patrick in the ToC and in the introduction. Apparently the DAW pubs with the essay just use Patrick as well.  The essay is a criticism of "The Queen of Air and Darkness".  It has 27 endnotes, and in the acknowledgments, he thanks Professor Manfred Halpern and Sandra Miesel, the latter not only for her articles on Anderson's work, but also for "fruitful discussion over a period of years".  Maybe he's a recent graduate student (in 1974)?  Otherwise, no idea. Bob 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Van Vogt and Hull's Out of the Unknown
I think we've got this title incorrectly listed as a collection when it should be an anthology. However, that raises issues about how the author(s) should be listed. Please see this discussion and weigh in if you wish. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the Canadian price to your verified
I added the Canadian price to your verified

Lacey and His Friends
Have replaced Amazon image with a scan of my verified copy in Lacey and His Friends http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?19811 Prof beard 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Handbook, Revised: A Guide to Writing Imaginative Literature
Added a better cover scan to Science-Fiction Handbook, Revised: A Guide to Writing Imaginative Literature. Also changed LCCN and OCLC notes to links.SFJuggler 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Bob 23:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Conan the Texan", by Simon Sanahujas
You verified this publication as "Conan the Texan". WorldCat lists a French language title by this author and publisher titled "Conan le Texan". It seems odd that the same publisher would publish it in two languages, but they do list the French title as a 2008 publication, while yours is a 2009 publication. Can you verify that your book is a translation of the French title? Does it list the translator? Thanks, Chavey 02:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon my intrusion, this book is likely this one, a translation of that one. Hauck 06:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That shows that they were published by the same publisher, and gives publication dates beyond just the year. I'll update the two records. Chavey 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The book itself does not credit the French edition, although it does credit the translators. All copies were sold by mail-order. Bob 23:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you add the translator credit to the notes on that book? Chavey 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Bob 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales Facsimiles and the Author of The Eyrie
I've been working on some of the unverified issues of Weird Tales and I've noticed that ones where you have a facsimile of the issue (e.g. ) thee are a few things that I'm changing when I work on the contents of the original issue. Most of these are not controversial (adding disambiguation to the titles, adding the month to the publication date). However, I've also noticed that you have many issues where Farnsworth Wright is listed as the author of "The Eyrie". Is Wright explicitly credited as authoring the Eyrie in your facsimile issues? None of the original issues nor the one facsimile that I own have an author credited for "The Eyrie" during Wright's editorship. Additionally, Jaffery and Cook's The Collector's Index to Weird Tales lists no author for the column for any issue. Unfortunately, Miller/Contento doesn't list "The Eyrie" at all. While I agree that Wright almost certainly wrote the column, unless he is explicitly credited, I think we need to change these to "The Editor" per the section on author in this help page. Since my intent is to expand the unverified issues of WT, I can make these changes as I encounter each issue. I can detail them for the issues where you have the facsimile, if you'd like, otherwise, if you agree, I'll proceed with the non-controversial changes without notification. I will, of course, inquire if I encounter anything where the secondary sources disagree with your facsimiles. Let me know if this is agreeable. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, Ron, and make the changes in the facsimiles. I don't recall if I started this because one or more issues had "ed." or Wright's initials on some of his comments, but his name does not appear. Bob 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Fanscient #7
Can you confirm the spelling of the artist credit on page 25 of this publication? If it's entered as credited, I'll create a variant for Rotsler. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a typo. Fixed.  Thanks, Michael. Bob 22:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Fox - Anderson
Added gutter code note and changed LCCN to link in Star Fox.SFJuggler 01:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Confirm gutter code. Bob 17:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Murder Bound - Anderson
Added notes & links to Murder Bound.SFJuggler 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shield - Anderson
Added notes & links to Shield.SFJuggler 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * He also changed the price to "15s" (which I corrected to "15/-". Please confirm that it's correct. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My copy is price clipped. My records on the book say that the original price was 15/6, but I'm not sure where that came from and if SFJuggler's copy shows 15s, I bow to his source. Bob 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"... on front jacket flap" in title
Hi Bob. I accepted your content submission for, but I don't think you should do the "Figure 8" title the way you did. The location doesn't belong in the title, but rather in the Page field. The help says you can use descriptive text (what it doesn't say is the text is limited to eight characters). I find quite a few examples where this has been done, so there is a precedent. One pub uses "front fl"; something similar would be "fr flap", I suppose. --MartyD 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marty. I had no idea how to handle that; I like your suggested form. Bob 08:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating Spectrum 19
Submission updating this record to add contents was accepted...then I noticed that another editor had done the same for another edition of the same publication. You have chosen to add quotation marks to the titles, a choice not usually taken unless it is the author/artist's intention, such as in titles which themselves are quotes. The other editor didn't use the marks and has skipped adding contents to pages 90-156 which you have entered. In any case, you two should get together to reconcile the two pub records. The many dozens of content records will also need to be merged. In the future, it is advisable to check with other editions to see if the contents are already in the database. Importing would have saved you the now apparent wasted effort in manually entering each of these content records and the time it will take to merge them. Mhhutchins 23:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion between you and the other editor. I also wonder why the book's sections are listed in the title record. That is usually done in the publication record as it was done here by the other editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On the last point: I didn't enter either of those section listings.  I did enter section listings for Spectrum 20 in the title record, though.  Since the same sections apply to all editions, it seemed to me that the title record was the better choice for such information.  On the first point, I became aware that the other editor had entered some content records for Spectrum 19, and intended to contact her before merging items.  I was mildly surprised that she had not added those entries to my earlier entry for the hardcover, and discovered what had happened when I went to merge a few titles yesterday.  As for the quotes, I used them where the pub used the title of the illustration, and inserted no quotes where there is no title, but the content is obvious (usually with comics items, eg. Batman, Penguin, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles).  I'll contact her now and straighten things out. Bob 00:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of making separate submissions to change each individual title, why not do a publication update to change them in one submission? Mhhutchins 01:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Done for the rest of the illos! Bob 02:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shaun Tan[n]
Could you double check the two pieces credited to Shaun Tann in Spectrum 20. I suspect they are really by Shaun Tan. If they are miscredited, we should make them variants. Additionally, I suspect that "Never Leave a Red Sock on the Clothesline" is likely the same painting as "Never Leave a Red Sock on the Line" I've double checked the title of the latter and it is correct. The image is of a giant rabbit in in alley between houses with two figures huddling behind a fence. The image is in sepia and black except for a single red sock hanging on a clothesline. The credit in the Aussicon book further states that it was first published by Gestalt in the anthology Flinch. This may be another case where a variant is warranted. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The credits are given to "Tann", although the index lists the artist as "Tan", referring to the same drawings. So they should be varianted.  I haven't gotten that far in reviewing the artwork for variants yet, but I will make them variants when I get to them.  The illustration "Red Sock" is NOT the same.  It's in color, and shows a giant red rabbit, as well as the sock on the line.  I do note the title is slightly different:  it has "[redux]" after the name I've entered.  I'll add that to the title when I get that far (I have 14 pages to go to get there).  Thanks for the heads-up, Ron. Bob 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Unmerging" pubs from contents
I'm holding the submissions in which you want to "unmerge" publications from their contents. We usually use the "Remove Titles" function to do this. What exactly are you attempting to do with these submissions? Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This goes back to the Help note I left yesterday. Several times I had merged illustrations that appeared twice in Spectrum 20.  Then when I imported the contents into the paperback, those illustrations appeared twice, but with the same page number for both.  I was unmerging those to try to correct the problem, then adding the second page of the illustration to the contents of the hardcover version.  The imported contents could be corrected before submission because I could change the page numbers of one of the duplicates (in the TPB version). Bob 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll accept the submissions, but can't vouch to the results. It's probably best to just remove the incorrect titles from the pubs since I'm sure there's no bugs n that function. Mhhutchins 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

INTERIORART record = front cover?
This looks strange. How can there be an INTERIORART record for front cover art? Cover art credit is entered in the metadata section, not the contents section. And why create records for "fr flap" and "bk flap"? I've never seen that done before. Also, records for back cover art should be entered with page number "bc" according to the current standards. Also why give such a detailed description in the title field of "Nefertitl-Tut Express (p. 11 of "The Nefertiti-Tut Express" by Ray Bradbury, 2012)"? That much data in the title field just muddies the record, especially when you're only supposed to give the title. Such information could be given in the content record's note field. Mhhutchins 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it looks strange. Per the notes sections, Spectrum 19 and 20 hardcovers have pictorial covers that use different art from the dust jackets.  The front dust jacket art is credited in the metadata section and the back of the dust jacket as "bc".  The illustrations on the pictorial covers is credited as "fr cover" and "bk cover"; if there is a different standard, I'd be happy to change them. I'll modify the p. 11 and p. 18 i.d.s; that was a place holder for the information.  The flap illustrations are apparently not unique; the use of "fr flap" was suggested by another moderator based on other entries in the data base (look 4 items up in my discussion). Bob 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are that many records in the db for flap art (even though I've never seen one of them), then it should be documented in the standards. And if I was confused by "bk cover" and "fr cover" then it's very likely that the average user would as well. Maybe come up with another term for "cover" of a book? Board? Mhhutchins 00:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seven Conquests - Poul Anderson
Added publication date and ID number to Seven Conquests.SFJuggler 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Thank you. Bob 20:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hour of the Dragon
Please check the publisher credit in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct as given. Bob 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked because Lulu spells it as "Strigoi", which is a lot easier to pronounce. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The name on the back cover and the title page are in a fancy scrip and all in caps, and it appears to me to be as given; the letter in question curves back to the left at the bottom, like a J. But that may indeed be a feature of the lettering used; the name given on the copyright page is in plain text, and is indeed "Strigoi".  So I'll change the spelling to the latter.  Bob 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Magnus, Robet Fighter"
I'm holding the submission which wants to variant this record to one with (supposedly) the correct spelling. But if there is no record with that title in existence (as "Robot") then you shouldn't create a false title record, even if it is correctly spelled. Do you know if this piece has been published anywhere with the correct spelling? Mhhutchins 00:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that it's the cover of a comic book. Since there's no possibility of it ever being eligible on its own as a title record in the ISFDB, I would suggest either correcting the title field and noting the incorrect spelling, or leaving it as published in the artbook and noting the correct spelling in the title record's note field. Mhhutchins 00:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked up the title on the internet to find out how it should have been spelled (and that it's a comic). I have found a number of typos in all this information for the artbooks.  I don't like your second suggestion at all, I'll use the first. Bob 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree and you chose wisely. Unlike fiction credit, I think we can bend the rules as far as art records go, especially in a case where there's never going to be a "correct" title in the db. Mhhutchins 01:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Spectrum 17
I'm not certain how it happened but all content records up to page 58 in this publication were duplicated. I remember accepting the submission, and then going back to the queue, and seeing that the submission was still listed. So I checked the record and saw that only the first fifty or so pages had been accepted. At that point, I could have gone back and rejected the submission that remained in the queue, but that would mean you'd have to add all of the contents up to page 104 again. Instead, I accepted the submission hoping it wouldn't duplicate the contents which were already in the record. Unfortunately, it did. The only thing to do now is to remove the duplicates, and then merge them with the other records. Once you've seen this message, let me know, and I can help you do this. Again, I don't know how it happened, but I'll help you fix it. Mhhutchins 01:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can guess how it happened. Sometimes I hit a wrong key and submit something I'm working on before I'm done, a problem of a poor touch typist.  Usually, I then cancel the submission.  But this time I guess I wasn't aware of the premature submission, hit the back arrow and kept on typing.  I appreciate that you didn't reject the second submission; it's easier to remove the extra content than reenter the extra.  I'll take care of it. Bob 15:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that happened in this case. There was only one submission in the queue and there's only one shown in the recent integration list, even though I accepted it twice. I'm thinking that because it included so many content records that before all of them were integrated into the database, there was a "hiccup" and the last step in the process (to remove the submission from the queue) never happened. So when I went back to the queue, the same submission was still sitting there. This is known to have happened in the past, especially when entering or updating records which added a great number of contents.


 * In any case, we can fix it. I've started deleting the duplicate title records working backward from page 58. Feel free to start at the beginning and go forward from there. BTW, you deleted two records titled "Kuska" by Android Jones, one each on pages 3 and 4. Was that intentional? Mhhutchins 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was. The illustration covers both pages, but is centered on p. 4.  The first time I entered it I put it there.  The second time I put it on p. 3, and that one got duplicated.  It should remain on p. 3. Bob 21:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Varianted cover art of The Comet Kings
It now appears on this page. Stonecreek 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Bob 15:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankenstein Serial in December 1932 Weird Tales
When you get a chance, could you double check that Mary Shelley's name in your facsimile of the December 1932 issue of Weird Tales? Miller/Contento lists her as "Mary W. Shelley" which I'm certain is incorrect. Jaffery/Cook lists the installments under "Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley" which I suspect applies to the December 1932 installment as well. However, of the issues I own which contain installments, one of them has her name as "Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley" with the hyphen. I've entered the other installments that I don't own from the form in Jaffery/Cook since they match the other installments I do own. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jaffery/Cook had it correctly. No hyphen under the story title or in the TOC. I submitted a change. Bob 00:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Derleth's Nellie Foster
I've got another one for you. Both Miller/Contento and Jaffery/Cook list the author of "Nellie Foster" as "August W. Derleth" in its appearance in the June 1933 issue of Weird Tales. Could you double check your facsimile edition and let me know if his middle initial is present? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed that the cover is credited to Margaret Brundage. Miller/Contento has it as "M. Brundage" which is how I've generally seen her name presented in this era, usually in the table of contents. If you could double check that too, that would be great.  Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of your differences are correct, it is August W. Derleth and M. Brundage. I didn't change submit a change for Derleth because I don't know if the "W." is correct for all of the appearances; I did submit a change for Brundage.Bob 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

September 1933 Weird Tales
I seem to be hitting a run of these where you've got the Girsol editions. For the September 1933 copy. Could you check how Brundage's name is credited; check whether Derleth's name includes his middle initial for the Derleth/Schorer story; and check whether the Frank Belknap Long poem has him credited with the "Jr." suffix. Miller/Contento indicates all of these. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * All are as shown in Miller/Contendo. I submitted a change only for Brundage. Bob 01:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking all of the above. I've gone ahead and made the additional edits. Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 05:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Spectrum 17: fiction?
Can you check the types of the content records on pages 118-120 of this record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Fixed. Bob 03:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More Weird Tales Facsimiles
Rather than continuing to bother you issue by issue, I've tried to go through all the remaining Weird Tales facsimiles that I haven't yet asked about. There are 7 issues where I think the cover artist should be credited as "M. Brundage": 5/34, 8/34, 12/34, 11/35, 7/36, 8/36 and 6/38,  Additionally, two of those have stories by Derleth that should have his middle initial (12/34 & 11/35) and one where Frank Belknap Long should have the Jr. suffix (8/34). I can handle the edits as I go over the original issues, if you have no objection. I'm not sure of the source of the original import of the WT records, but they almost always use the canonical forms of Derleth and Long's names, also Keller and Leiber. Thanks again for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ron, I plead guilty to not being very careful with non-canonical versions of these names. When I enter data on the facsimiles, I first fill in the illustrators and letters in the already entered magazines.  Then I copy the contents into a new entry for the facsimiles since the data base doesn't allow cloning of magazines.  I didn't make any attempt to change the authors' names, and I pretty much copied whatever information was in the original.  So please make the corrections as you encounter them, and you certainly don't need to keep me informed on them.  You are just making it much easier for me to enter future facsimiles! Thanks! Bob 14:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How to link to images on Amazon's server

 * Right click on the image and a menu should pop up. Depending on the browser you use, there will be an option to copy the image's URL (address). Choose that option.
 * In an update to a publication record, go down to the "Image URL:" field, and place your cursor in the blank field. Right click and choose to paste, again the wording may be different based on your browser. You can also use the keyboard and tap the CTRL and V keys at the same time. This will copy the URL of the image in the field.
 * Remove all characters between the two dots of the URL. For example if the URL is
 *  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pgjHneyiL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg 


 * you should remove all the characters between the dots, (leaving one of the dots) and it will look like this:


 *  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pgjHneyiL.jpg .

This should present a clean copy of the image, without the "Look Inside" banner and much larger than the image seen in the Amazon listing. This is what the image looks like with all of the characters. This is what it looks like after removing the characters.

Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Michael. Bob 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing title records contained in publication records in consecutive submissions
All of those title records you changed from this publication record reverted to the original (bad) title when you made a submission to update the publication record without waiting for the submissions to change the contents had been accepted. They'll have to be changed again. Please wait until submissions which change contents are accepted before making a submission to change the publication in which those contents appear. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Fixed. Bob 21:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Sword & Sorcery Anthology
I made some changes to your verified : Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed "Introduction:" from the beginning of the introduction title as it's only present on the TOC and not the essay title page
 * Changed the page number of "Path of the Dragon" from 327 to 427
 * Added a cover scan.
 * In making a second pass, I found another change needed. "The Stages of the God" was listed as by "Montgomery Comfort". However, the story is actually credited to "Ramsey Campbell" on the story's title page. I removed the variant and replaced it with the parent accordingly. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Trouble Twisters
Can you confirm that the cover artist is credited as "Emmanuel" (two "m"s) in this publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Same question about Seven Conquests. Mhhutchins 19:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both single "m". Fixed.  Thanks, Michael. Bob 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

American Supernatural Tales
Re this record: what publisher is given on the title page? Also, because the book was first published in 2007, it's very likely that the introductory material including the author essays should be dated 2007. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not the Del Toro intro. That was put in for this edition when Penguin Books put the pub into the Penguin Horror series, which Del Toro edits.  I changed the others, but I think that's a guess; I don't know if the author pieces appear in the earlier edition, but I do agree it's likely. Bob 02:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I knew the Del Toro introduction was new, but I'm fairly certain that they didn't add the author introductions for the new edition. The page count for both editions is exactly the same (except for the roman-numbered pages.) Mhhutchins 23:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1636: Seas of Fortune
Re this record: Where does the novel fit in between all of the shortfiction pieces? Or is it a collection? Also, one of the maps was entered as shortfiction. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not a novel, but two novellas. Fixed. Bob 02:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating individual title records
Perhaps you didn't know, but the last dozen or so submissions to update the titles and credits of the contents of this record could have been done in a single submission to update the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, theoretically. But it would have been extremely difficult to find the problems that way.  I had to go through the book page by page and compare the entries to the pub in order to find the errors.  The pub edit puts the contents into alphabetical order rather than page order, making such comparisons very time consuming for the reviewer.  I suppose I could find the errors and write notes, then come back and edit the pub, but that too is much more difficult.  Obviously best to avoid the errors in the first place. Bob 21:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. It makes sense when you put it that way. Mhhutchins 23:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Metamorphosis
Almost every source I could find give the editor and publisher of this art collection as Jon Beinart (thus the name of the publishing company). You have the cover artist as "Jon Bienart" and the editor as Robyn Flemming, and the only source that gives that credit is Amazon. Check out here, here, and here. I'm pretty much convinced that Amazon has it wrong. Mhhutchins 01:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the reviews on Amazon, one of which credits Beinart. Mhhutchins 01:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While the review in Amazon says the book "is by Bienart", that same review says "The book was edited by freelance editor, Robyn Flemming." Yes, Bienart published the pub and may have chosen the artwork, but Flemming is apparently given as the editor.  The other sources you cited are reviews, and obviously enchanted by Bienart's work, but I think Amazon is a much more authoritative source.  When I looked for the book on bookfinder.com, nothing comes up with Bienart as the author or as a keyword, but a bunch of copies come up with Flemming as the author. Bob 03:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We won't know until we know who's credited on the title page. And the OCLC record, which as a rule only credits from the title page, doesn't even mention Flemming. There's still the problem of the spelling of "Bienart"s name. At least that should be corrected. Mhhutchins 03:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

James Bama
The information from this record sourced from Amazon has conflicts with the OCLC record, which gives the date as 2006 and indicates an ISBN-10. Any Amazon listing that gives January 1 as the publication date should be suspect. It's their default for unknown publication dates.

Also, the content title records should be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Changed ISBN and date, added disambiguation. Bob 04:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One last thing I forgot to mention: you forgot to remove the characters between the dots in the URL linking to the cover image on Amazon. I'll do that for you. Mhhutchins 06:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Michael, the cover art for this pub does not appear to be in Bama's list of covers. The book is listed, but the cover isn't.  What's going on? Bob 19:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Breath of God
Are you certain that this record should be varianted to this record? The artist credit doesn't match. Mhhutchins 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The artworks definitely match. I've asked the verifier if he can confirm the artist, but he verified as a transient.  It sure looks like Manchess art to me, but for now it seems reasonable to variant the two and see if the right answer can be worked out. Bob 04:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of #
I've been noticing recently with the updating of the Spectrum series that you've been entering a space between # and the number in titles. Is that evident in stated title as published or just a personal preference. (A search has shown you've verified other records that use the same entry quirk.) I've never seen it done that way, always seeing the # butt against the following digit, or at least, I haven't noticed it up until now. Mhhutchins 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It started when the space was evident, but I continued it in virtually all cases because it seems to be clearer to me. I don't feel really strongly about it, but will continue that way unless there is some objection. Bob 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For one thing, it screws up searches. If 99% of users don't expect that there's a space, they're not going to bother doing another search. Also, and this is strictly personal, it's aesthetically unpleasant to look at. :) Is there any particular reason to continue adding the space, especially if it's not present in the title as given in the publication? (This is similar to the situation with the double spaces after colons which continued to plague update submissions until Ahasuerus wrote a script recently that removed them from all database title records, and automatically removes them in new submissions.) Mhhutchins 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate appearance of a poem in Robert E. Howard: Selected Poems
Can you check this publication to see if the same poem, Destiny ("What is there real, my girl. . . "), appears twice in the publication on pages 62 and 232. (You won't see them displayed in the record, because the software can't handle two identical works published in the same publication.) This situation is repeated in the paperback edition. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good eye, Michael. Yes, the same poem appears twice, although the first is labelled "Destiny (2)" and the second "Destiny (1)" by the editor.  It is likely that the one on p. 262 was meant to be the poem that starts "I think I was born to pass at dawn…", which is named in other pubs as "Destiny 1", but that the editor made a mistake and used "Destiny 2" a second time.  That illustrates why I prefer to use the first line to disambiguate Howard's poems with the same title instead of sticking an arbitrary number on them like some editors have done.  And I don't understand why they both don't appear in the record.  The Spectrum pubs have duplicate illustrations, and they all seem to show up in the record. Bob 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not if they've been merged as a single title record. They've probably been disambiguated to avoid the merging of the title records.


 * As I said above, the software can't display two appearances of the same work within the same publication if they've been merged into one title record. You can enter them, but both can't be displayed. I suppose there's a good reason why it was designed this way. You might want to ask Ahasuerus. He should be able to explain better than I.


 * If they're differently titled on their respective title pages, one would be a variant of the other, and then both would be displayed. If they're identically titled (and merged as one title record), your only option is to do what is done in this record where the same story was (accidentally?) published twice in the publication. Look at the last bulleted note where I explain its second appearance. You can do that in the case of this poem (if they're identically titled.) Mhhutchins 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I added that note to the records. Nice fix. Bob 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey (or Jeffery) Scott (1019)?
Is "1019" really part of this guy's name? Also, there are two different spellings of the first name: here and here. Mhhutchins 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is indeed how it appears, both under the illustration and in the index. Bob 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Different spellings as well? If so, you should determine the correct one and make the other into a pseudonym. (It appears to be "Jeffery" based on the spelling on this website. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The spellings are indeed different in the two pubs (it appears twice in "15"). I'll variant it when I go through the entries for that pub. Bob 20:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad this was here. Nipped THAT question in the bud.  I added the pseudonym relationship.  But, while approving the variants, I noticed: Portrait of theRed Queen.  Should there be a space in there?  Figured I should ask instead of presuming.  I'll go do it if it belongs, since now two titles will need to be changed.  Thanks.  --MartyD 15:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. I didn't put the space in because I wasn't sure I could until the variant was approved.  I really haven't gotten that far in my review of this pub's contents -- I'm sure there are other misspellings/errors, and I'll work my way through later today or tomorrow. Bob 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Varmints
This record for a CHAPTERBOOK was created without a SHORTFICTION content record. Also, according to the OCLC record, it should have an ISBN-13, not the ISBN-10 which was used to create the record. Please update it when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 10:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Michael. Done. Bob 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Anthony Kraft
Is the editor of this issue correctly attributed in the record? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Stupid typo. Fixed. Bob 21:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Volunteers of Venus"
Your note in this record says that this was "Chapter 8 of and 18" from the "Cosmos" serial. I think the "and" is probably a typo. It appeared in the original fanzine publication as Chapter 8 of 18 chapters. Mhhutchins 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Should be "an", not "and". Fixed. Bob 21:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OAK Leaves #9
Is the piece on page 28 of this publication an essay? Also there appears to be a typo in the title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's two blurbs about the book, I consider it an essay. And that is the way the content is titled, no typo.  I'll explain in a note on the item when I get to it, now that it's entered in the db. Bob 21:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Blurbs really aren't supposed to be entered as content records. Wouldn't a mention in the note field be sufficient? Especially since the pieces are uncredited and won't likely be searched by any user in this universe or any future or parallel one? :) Heaven help us if anyone sees this record and thinks he ought to start entering every blurb on every book in his collection. Mhhutchins 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K., done. Bob 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dating of the Mori interiorart pieces
Did you intend that the parent records for these illustrations (crediting to "Roger B. Morrison") in this publication be given the 1971 date instead of their original 1930 publication date? Ordinarily the parent record not only has the date of the canonical author (or artist) but also has the original publication date. Mhhutchins 02:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed that when I went through the pub with those illustrations. Bob 19:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You fixed the dates of the variant records (credited to "Mori") when you updated the pub. But you dated the parent records as 1971. Check out the parent records for each of the four illustrations. Mhhutchins 20:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K., fixed those too. Bob 20:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ora Rozar
Notes in title records should be specific to the titles. Any data about the author should be given in the Bio or Biblio page linked from their author summary page (depending upon what type of data it is). Noting that Rozar is Kline's daughter in each of her title records is both redundant and not title-specific data. Mhhutchins 02:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed, I hope. Bob 19:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The bio page looks good. Mhhutchins 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kline's The Swordsman of Mars
The publication of selected chapters from this novel should not be typed as SERIAL. They are unlengthed SHORTFICTION excerpts. SERIAL implies that the publisher's intention is to presenting a novel-length work either in one issue or successive parts over a number of issues. That doesn't seem to be the intention in these cases. Mhhutchins 03:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Spectrum 14
Is the piece on page 97 of this publication shortfiction? Mhhutchins 03:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with Amra, Vol. 2, #63 here. Reviewer of REH's Almuric should be "Val D. Conder," not "Val D. Condor," on pp. 19-20 Lee 00:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with Amra, Vol. 2, #63 here. The reviewer of REH's The Incredible Adventures of Dennis Dorgan on p. 18 should be "Val D. Conder," not "Val D. Condor." Lee 00:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, Lee. Fixed.  Thank you for spotting this.  In future, if you spot such errors in my contributions, please feel free to make the correction yourself and just notify me that you have done so.  I trust your judgement. Bob 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed title of Graveyard Rats and Others from "Graveyard Rat and Others" to "Graveyard Rats and Others" for all printings. Couldn't change the yellow-coded titles, though. Lee 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I accepted the changes. These messages to Bob have been incorrectly entered onto his talk page. Click on the + tab to start a new topic instead of editing the last message (or the page.) Enter the subject in the proper field and then the message in the box underneath. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Linking an Amazon sales page to a title record...
...shouldn't be done. The webpage field of a title record should be used to link to one whose purpose is something other than to sell the product. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I wondered. Thanks.Bob 21:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing extra characters from an Amazon URL
The image linked from Amazon to this record is the smaller one. (Click on it.) If you remove the characters between the two dots of the URL, you'll get a larger image. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I keep thinking I've removed the characters between the dots, but find that I didn't get them all. Frustrating. Fixed. Bob 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed the note Sword & Fantasy #9 review to Steven T. Riley's review of Robert E. Weinberg's Robert E. Howard Fantasy Biblio that says it is actually not in Return to Wonder #8, as Sword & Fantasy #8 states. I added that it is actually in Return to Wonder #7, Vol. 2, #1, Nov./Dec., 1969, pp. 16-17, which I have, and can provide a scan of, since it's not in isfdb. Lee 16:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tried to correct Boxing Stories review by Kahan to change "Jerffrey Kahan" to "Jeffrey Kahan," but was not allowed to do so because it would result in a duplicate entry. Lee 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Lee, I hope you will add Return to Wonder #7 to the database. I've been looking for that pub for years, but have never been able to find it.  Also, please note the last item under your last message to me (above).  When you add to someone's User talk, hit the "+" tab to the right of the "edit" tab, which will give you a place to put a new heading and then enter your comment.  This creates a new comment rather than adding to an old one. Please don't hesitate to add new publications -- it's kind of trial and error,although you should first review the new pub help screen.  Nobody expects perfection! Bob 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To correct the spelling of Kahan's name, you click on the review, then edit the title, deleting the extra "r" in the author's name. I took care of this one. Bob 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed note Sword & Fantasy #9 review to add that the incorrect reference Return to Wonder #8 should be Return to Wonder #7. Lee 17:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover for Spectrum #17
Hello, Bob. I rejected your update for Spectrum #17. The amazon image would have been replaced with the image of Spectrum #18, and I don't think that's what you intended. Christian Stonecreek 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Christian. I'm really getting senile, I guess. Resubmitted. Bob 20:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Things like that happen to everyone of us! I did worse than this in too many cases. Stonecreek 08:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, January-February 1954 - Desert Crossing
I'm holding your submission to make "Desert Crossing" a variant of the cover of Fantastic, January-February 1954. I notice that the artists for both each work are different and there isn't a pseudonym relationship between the two. If Gurney is a pseudonym of Kramer, we should build that relationship and make variants of all the titles, unless this is a misprint in the interior art. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't know how I did that one! There is no relationship between those two.  "Desert Crossing" is a variant of "Cover: Dinotopia: Journey to Chandra".  I've cancelled the first submission and resubmitted.  I really don't know how that error occurred.

More Corrections to Sword & Fantasy #9
At Sword & Fantasy #9 review of Conan Reader I changed the note to say it was reprinted from Science Fiction Times #461 instead of #459, which is wrongly stated in S & T #9. Verified from an eBay ad. Lee 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At Sword & Fantasy #9 review of Etchings in Ivory changed note to say the review was actually reprinted from Science Fiction Times #460, not #462 as stated in S & F #9. I have #460 & #462. Lee 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At Sword & Fantasy #9 review of Red Shadows changed the note to say it was reprinted from Science Fiction Times #461, not #459 as stated in S & T #9. Verified from an eBay ad. Lee 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction to REH's Sentiment
In Sentiment changed "Rinside Tales" to "Ringside Tales." Lee 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Etchings in Ivory Review
Would you please confirm that this review in your verified is truly for the short story (as currently listed) and not the collection (of the same name)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)