User talk:Grymsayre


Jump to: navigation, search

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.



Hello, Grymsayre, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MHHutchins 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"The House of the Worm" and variant titles

Just a note that I have rejected the proposed merge of "The House of the Worm" and "The Feast in the House of the Worm" and set them up as variant titles instead -- please see Help: How to record a variant title for instructions on how to handle works of fiction that have appeared either pseudonymously or under different titles. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #s 29 and 31

Hi. I have your proposed additions of Crypt of Cthulu #s 29 and 31 on hold. It looks to me like they duplicate (but with much better titling and detail) the existing entries Crypt of Cthulhu #29, 1985 and Crypt of Cthulhu #31, 1985. Rather than losing all of your data entry work, if you agree with that assessment, I will take care of combining what you did with what's there (perhaps getting rid of what's there and using yours instead, we'll see). One question: Is it really a Fanzine, or would it be more appropriately classified a Magazine? I know it's a very blurry line.... You can reply here by editing this section. Indent your response by putting a colon at the beginning of the line. Thanks. --MartyD 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful response. I agree with your assessment, so combine at will. As for whether Crypt was a fanzine or a magazine, that is a thornier question. I called it a fanzine because similar publications from the same people -- Cthulhu Codex, Midnight Shambler, Tales of Lovecraftian Horror -- are so called in the database. Also the typesetting, binding and (sometimes) art had a distinctly amateurish look. On the other hand, the content was often amazing, and I happen to know that they paid for some contributions. So if you want to call it a magazine, I will not complain. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grymsayre (talkcontribs) .
Sounds good, thanks. I don't have any objection to fanzine, only the existing entries were classified magazine. I checked, and none is verified. So if you have some and they seem fanzine-ish to you, that's good enough for me. I've approved the submissions and have fixed them up. I will get rid of the existing entries and fix up the series as I get a chance. --MartyD 02:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Content entries

A couple of comments about the content entries in those submissions:

  • For titles that will be repeated, such as "Editorial Shards", we disambiguate by placing the issue name in parentheses after the title. E.g., "Editorial Shards (Crypt of Cthulhu #29, Summer 2011)". One the submission has been accepted, you might also want to put those titles into their own series (such as "Editorial Shards" or "Editorial Shards - Crypt of Cthulhu"). I apply both of these suggestions so that you'll be able to see what it looks like.
  • To make a general interiorart credit, we use the same title as for the publication, with a type of INTERIORART. No need to put "interior artwork" or anything like that in the title. If you want to credit specific instances of interior art, we use the title or caption (if there is one), otherwise the title of the story illustrated (if it illustrates one), otherwise the title of the publication; and give a page number. If more than one piece would end up with the same title, we add "[2]", "[3]", etc. to the subsequent ones. I will fix up the credits in the submissions to conform to this.

Very minor, and just something to keep in mind for future submissions. Overall, the information you provided looks very good. Thank you for contributing. --MartyD 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More Crypt of Cthulhu

FYI, another editor,EDeG has also started working on Crypt of Cthulhu. I pointed him to the note above and suggested the two of you might coordinate your efforts. --MartyD 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #10

I'm holding a submission that wants to change the title, editor and publication type for this issue of the magazine. The greatest concern is changing the editor credit to H. P. Lovecraft, Divers Hands, and Robert M. Price. How is the actual publication credited? It's unlikely that Lovecraft edited this 1982 publication several decades after his death. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that would get somebody's attention! The front cover reads, "ASHES/and Others/H. P. Lovecraft &/divers hands." The title page reads, "ASHES/AND OTHERS/BY/H. P. LOVECRAFT/& DIVERS HANDS/EDITED BY/ROBERT M. PRICE/A CRYPT OF CTHULHU BOOK/Miskatonic University Press/1982." The reverse title reads, "Introductory material/and cover art/Copyright c 1982/by Robert M. Price/Crypt of Cthulhu/35 Elmbrook Place/Bloomfield, NJ 07003." The last paragraph and sign-off of the Introduction (page 3) reads "Finally, an explanatory note: the present collection does not follow the format of an ordinary issue of Crypt of Cthulhu, but it counts as Volume 2, Number 2, in the series. And it is the first of two parts in that Volume 2, Number 3, though it will resume the usual format, will feature articles expounding and commenting on Lovecraft's revisions. These will include, among others, 'Lovecraft's Revisions--How Much of Them Did He Write?' and 'Who Wrote "The Mound"?' by S. T. Joshi, '"Yig," "The Mound," and American Indian Lore' by Michael DiGregorio, and 'The Revision Mythos,' by the present writer./Robert M. Price/Yuletide 1982." The book is physically the same as an ordinary issue, 5 1/4" x 8 1/2", paper wrapper, single fold with two staples. What can I say? Some editor/publishers simply have no consideration for their poor bibliographers/moderators. I am truly sorry to be passing this headache onto you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grymsayre (talkcontribs) .
I'm going to accept the submission, but change the editor credit solely to Robert M. Price. Also remember to end all your messages with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically sign and date them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #19

The submission updating this issue was accepted, but I have a few questions. 1) Is the interview of Brian Lumley actually credited to "Crypt of Cthulhu" as the interviewer? 2) It appears that The Asylum and Other Tales is a role-playing game and not a work of fiction. If so, the review should be deleted and an essay record for it created. 3) Does the title of the piece on Lumley by Price have two dashes (--) in the title or is it an emdash (—) instead? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of the editorial should be disambiguated as you did in other issues. Mhhutchins 04:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
1) There is no interviewer credit as such. The interview is a dialog between "Lumley" and "Crypt." 2) I will replace the review. 3) It is two dashes. The typesetting was primitive even for 27 years ago. 4) I will disambiguate the editorial. Thanks.

Crypt of Cthulhu #24

A few questions about this issue: 1) Is the Tierney interview on page 48 credited to "Crypt of Cthulhu"? 2) What is being reviewed on page 54? We have no record for the author or title. 3) Is the letter writer on page 56 named "Robert Block" or the more familiar author Robert Bloch? Also, I'm not familiar with the binding "C5". It is not one of the standard formats which we ask editors to use. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1)There is no interviewer credit as such. The interview is a dialog between "Tierney" and "Crypt." 2) The review is for a film. I will replace it with an essay. 3) I will correct Block to Bloch. 4) Oops. It seems I have been consistantly using C5 in place of A5. I have a lot of correcting to do. Thanks.
Sorry about letting some of the C5s through. I spaced that, reading "A5".... --MartyD 11:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I believe they are all corrected now.Grymsayre 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #2

That's an extraneous character in the pub record's title field of this issue. Also , it appears that the two reviews on page 22 are of movies, and should not be entered using the review type. The ISFDB matches reviews to fiction only, so these reviews should be entered as essays titled "Review of the movie Halloween II", or something similar, with the reviewer given as the author of the essay. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I will remove the extraneous character. 2) I will replace the movie reviews with an essay. Thanks.

Verifying records

I'm assuming that you're working from the actual publications when updating or creating new ISFDB records. If so, it would be appreciated if you could do a primary verification of those records. That way we know that the data is from the original source and not a secondary one, and it gives us a person to contact if we have questions concerning the pub records. It also prevents another editor from editing the record without deeper scrutiny by the moderator. Here is a link to the help page to explain how to verify records. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 05:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be doing a bunch of these shortly.

Crypt of Cthulhu #12

Is the review of "Dark Crystal" on page 39 of this issue a review of the movie? Also, is the essay on page 46 a continuing feature of this fanzine? If there's a possibility of the title being used in another issue, the title should be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I will replace the movie review with an essay. 2) Page 46 is the back cover, so the essay is the back cover blurb. I have not included these myself, but the gentleman who entered #12 has. Please let me know if there is a preference here. I can go either way, removing them from where they are or adding them with disambiguation where they are not. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimsayre (talkcontribs) .
FWIW, I've been doing a magazine with a lot of reviews for things we don't want entered separately, and I've been constructing the essay titles as "Work Title (review)". I don't recall the source of that formatting idea. --MartyD 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest qualifying the reviews: (film review), (graphic novel review), (game review), etc, to make it clear why the review was entered as an essay type instead of a review type. I personally enter the title as "Review of the film XXX" or "Review of the graphic novel XXX by YYY" giving the novel's author so that if the rules change about adding records for graphic novels I can easily find records to revert to reviews. Mhhutchins 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviews are qualified now: film (4), game (1) and stereo cassette (1).Grymsayre 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Magazine & fanzine page counts

It's ISFDB policy to record all pages in magazines, including covers (unlike the method used for books). Some magazines' pagination include the front cover and others start the pagination with the first inside page. If the latter, you should add four to the page count. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe these are all corrected now.Grymsayre 20:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu magazine grid

First, thanks for the work you're doing on adding this title to the database. Next, are you aware of the grid feature for magazines which are automatically generated when an editor record is placed into a series. I've been updating the editor records for issues that you've been entering, placing them into a previously created series titled (naturally) "Crypt of Cthulhu". Here's a look at the title's grid. You'll notice that some of the earlier records only gave the issue number (the stub records that were already in the db). The ones you've been adding have only the "season" name. There's a way to have both issue number and season appear on the grid: place the first comma in the pub record's title field after the title, for example enter it as "Crypt of Cthulhu, #39 Roodmas 1986" instead of "Crypt of Cthulhu #39, Roodmas 1986". As the person who is verifying these you can decide whether or not the issue number should appear on the grid. There are several reasons to include them, the most important of which is knowing at a glance if any issue's entry has been missed. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First, no thanks are necessary. Nostalgia is its own reward. Second, I have ammended the title field in accordance with your suggestion. I see a marked improvement already. Thanks, Grymsayre 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming there's no publication date given in these, I think within the spirit of the data entry rules you could nonetheless assign publication dates. Unlike "Spring", "Winter", etc., these seasonal terms actually correspond to unchanging days on the calendar:
  • Candlemas - Feb 2
  • Roodmas - May 3
  • St. John's Eve - Jun 23
  • Lammas - Aug 1
  • Michaelmas - Sep 29
  • Hallowmas - Nov 1
These two are periods, not days, unfortunately:
  • Eastertide - starts on Easter; shifts each year; some of it always falls in Apr
  • Yuletide - starts on Dec 24
Using the dates down to the day is probably stretching things, but using the month seems reasonable (arbitrarily using April for Eastertide, unless you want to figure out each year's Easter). That would distribute the issues across the grid. --MartyD 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not only does it seem reasonable, it also ties neatly into what was already done with most of the stubs. I'll give it a try. Thanks again, Grymsayre 21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Whenever you change the date field of a pub, you'll also need to change the date of the original contents for that pub, otherwise they would differ. I find that the best way to do this is to "blank" the dates of all the content records. The system will then redate them to the new date you've given the pub record. I've done this already for the first few pubs that you gave a month date to. Remember, only remove the dates of the contents which are original to this publication. You'll find some titles can't be blanked because they were reprinted in a later publication. These will have to corrected individually. Let me know if you have any questions about how this is done. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that it would be nice to have a visual display of the unique titles within a publication without having to edit it. OK, this is mostly because I do a lot of work on Anthologies and a self-confessed "reprint" anthology doesn't always highlight reprints by date. And we will get the always-thorny issue of "reprint of something only previously available online" - we must address that sometime. BLongley 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice-looking grid! Thanks, all, for the pointers. Grymsayre 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking reviews

I approved Crypt of Cthulhu #48, and there are some review in it that need linking. I couldn't find a write-up in the help, but basically, you need to find (or enter) the title being reviewed, copy (CTRL-C or right-click + Copy) the ID number that comes after "title.cgi?" in the URL for the title, then visit the review and use "Link Review to Title" at the left. When you submit a review in a publication, the software looks for the combination of reviewed title + reviewed author(s) and hooks up any matching titles. These appear with the title as a link when you look at the publication's contents. Anything for which a match was not found is displayed as text only. Sometimes the reviewed work isn't in our database, sometimes there's a spelling variation of some sort. Most spelling variations are dealt with by adjusting the spelling in the review record itself and putting the original spelling into the notes (see Help:Screen:EditPub#Reviews). If you'd like to try your hand at doing this, please do, and ask if you need help. If you'd prefer not do try this, let me know and I'll take care of them. Thanks. --MartyD 10:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Three reviews have been linked. Another four appear to be legitimate dead ends. Thanks again, Grymsayre 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
IMNSHO, there's rarely such a thing as a "legitimate dead end". If it's a review of a book, we probably want that book entered. If it's a review of something else, e.g. a film or TV show or music album, then we'd prefer that the 'review' is actually an ESSAY instead. I found a couple of pubs that appear to match the reviews, but often the review is a better source of information than mere Internet research. Can you add any more info? E.g. "Lovecraft Studies 14" implies a Publication or Title Series we want to cover, but I can't tell whether it's a title or book we already have from that description alone. BLongley 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In calling a review a legitimate dead end I only meant that I found nothing to link it to. This is not always for want of the right name. Looking over the issues I have entered so far, I see Whispers 17-18 unlinked in #12 and Whispers 23-24 unlinked in #56. Both these double issues are represented in the database, the first as 289020 and the second as 262562. But when I try to link reviews to these I get the message, "ERROR: TITLE RECORD DOES NOT EXIST." I also see Lovecraft Studies 14 unlinked in #48 and Lovecraft Studies 16 unlinked in #57. Lovecraft Studies is also represented in the database, but only by issues 27 and 28. You see my problem. Grymsayre 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You have to link to a title, not to a publication. 289020 and 262562 are publications (i.e., to view them, the link ends with "pl.cgi?", not "title.cgi?"). One of the most unfortunate side effects of merging magazine editor titles into a single yearly bucket is that there is no issue-specific title left to which a review can be linked. The best you can do is link to that yearly title (e.g., 432851 for 289020 or 880482 for 262562). --MartyD 10:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that resolves Whispers nicely. The issues of Lovecraft Studies, on the other hand, fall outside of the yearly titles that currently exist. Thanks again, Grymsayre 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding issues to the series, thus to the grid

Are you familiar with the method used to add issues to the magazine title's grid? If not, just ask, and I'll lead you through the steps. Mhhutchins 04:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the method. To tell the truth, I thought the process was automatic, though I sometimes wondered why it took so long. Any pointers will be much appreciated. Grymsayre 08:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It must be done manually. First, go to the editor page (in this case Robert M. Price) and look at the magazine series (in this case Crypt of Cthulhu) and compare it with the list of "ungrouped" editor records under the Magazine Editor category. Currently there are five records, four of which are for 1982 issues of "Crypt of Cthulhu". That's good, because in the Magazine Editor Series above there is already a title record for "Crypt of Cthulhu - 1982". (If there weren't, we'd have to create it. More on that when we come to it.) Next, click on "Show All Titles". Find the editor record for "Crypt of Cthulhu - 1982), check its box and then check the boxes of all editor records (there are four of them) for those 1982 issues. Go to the bottom and click on "Merge Selected Records". You will be led to a reconciliation page, which compare all of the records (in this case, the five records you checked), and it will ask you to determine which of the fields to choose if there's differences among the five records. You will choose to keep "Crypt of Cthulhu - 1982" as the title of the merged record, series will be "Crypt of Cthulhu" and the date to be kept will be "1982-00-00". Then submit.
When you're entering more than one issue of the same magazine title, you can choose to wait until all of one year's issues have been entered before merging them, or you can merge the editor records after each one is created. The former method involves less submissions. I'll wait until you come upon one to explain how to change a record that has no matching annual record. Mhhutchins 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It worked! That is something I would never have stumbled into by accident. Thanks, Grymsayre 15:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"If there weren't [already a title record for 'Crypt of Cthulhu - 1982'], we'd have to create it. More on that when we come to it." I think we have come to it. Not 1982 of course, but 2001, 2000 and 1999. How is this done, please? Grymsayre 05:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
First, merge all of the editor records for the year into one record. Don't worry about which fields to choose when it asks for reconciliation, they're all gonna be changed with the next submission. Once you have a single editor record choose "Edit Title Data". In the "Title" field, change to "Crypt of Cthulhu - 2000" (or whichever year applies). In the "Year" field, change the date to "2000-00-00" (again, depends upon the year). In the "Series" field, add "Crypt of Cthulhu". Then submit. That should do it. Mhhutchins 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have submitted a merge for 1999 and another for 2000. But what about 2001? That one has only one issue. Grymsayre 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Just edit that single record in the same format as the others. Mhhutchins 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Canon

You've entered a few essays by Peter Canon - should these actually be by Peter Cannon? BLongley 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They should indeed. I will start tracking them down at once. Thanks, Grymsayre 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert M. Price as Libidia Gillman

Is this piece actually credited to "Robert M. Price as Libidia Gillman "? If not, I can walk you through creating a variant record and pseudonym. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the name as name format as a place holder, thinking it would help when I started building synonyms. I quickly realized it would be no help at all and switched back to the credited name alone. As for building the synonyms, I would like to try to work that one out for myself. I will let you know if I run into any trouble. Thanks again, Grymsayre 15:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Pseudonyms have now been created. Next step is make each of the title records for these pseudonyms into variant records for Robert M. Price. I'm not sure why you changed the author of this record. Isn't this the name that was credited in the magazine? If so, it should be made into a variant ("Make This This a Variant..." tool) by Robert M. Price. Mhhutchins 23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I changed the author because I came to realize it was a caption, a character label, instead. I swear, it's as if they put these magazines together without thinking about the bibliographer at all! Let me see what I can do with the Variant tool. Thanks, Grymsayre 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you'll discovering the joys and horrors of bibliography! I'll accept the submission changing the credit of the art record. Mhhutchins 23:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cover image

You replaced the URL for the cover image of this issue with just the file name, removing all other characters in the address. I accepted the submission adding the new info, but reverted the cover image URL to the original address. Any reason why you replaced the URL address with the file name? Mhhutchins 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad you asked. Most of the Galactic Central cover scans are very good, but a few seem to be based on off-centerd black and white xeroxes which do not really reflect the original covers. So this morning I loaded a scan of my own and modified the publication according to my best understanding of what was wanted. Of course, my understanding may be flawed, in which case I look to you to set me right. Thanks, Grymsayre 14:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, is this something I may do, but did in the wrong way? (In which case, what is the right way?) Or is it something I may not do at all? Any clarification will be appreciated. Grymsayre 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can do it. You need the full URL of the Uploaded Image though, not just the file name - in this case BLongley 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It's better to upload images using the semi-automated method: go to the pub record, click on "Upload cover scan" (or "Upload new cover scan" if there's one already) and follow the directions. This will automatically add the required license tag to the image. The direct method you used (clicking on "Upload file" while in the wiki) requires you to add a license tag manually. Looking at the wiki page for the image you uploaded for Crypt #1, you'll see there is no tag, which will have to be corrected. I can do that for you once you've looked at it. Now look at the files on this list (click on the link under "Name", but not the "file") and you'll see what I mean by a license tag. This is the Fair Use Image Data and Rationale, which keeps artists, publishers, and lawyers off our back. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. I should be trying this out shortly. Grymsayre 02:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"You'll see there is no tag, which will have to be corrected. I can do that for you once you've looked at it." I have now looked at it (awhile ago, actually) and noted the lack of license tag. Please correct at your convenience. Thanks, Grymsayre 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a license tag to the image. Now you have to get the URL of the file. (Click on that link, then click on the image, then copy the URL). Now update the pub record by pasting the URL of the image into the Image URL field. You'll have to do this process with each image that you upload. BUT please use the "upload new cover scan" function from each issue's record. This will automatically add the license tag. (You'll still have to update the record once you've uploaded the image file.) Let me know if you have any questions. Mhhutchins 06:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Review link

I'm not sure why you're linking this 1984 review of "Mirrors of the Soul" with a 1987 short story "You Can't Take It With You", both by C. J. Henderson. What's the connection? Mhhutchins 01:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the review, "The trite title represents editorial tampering; it should read: "You Can't Take It With You." Price was in a good position to know. Henderson had been a semi-regular contributor to CRYPT going all the way back to #2. Still, maybe there is a better way to handle this? Grymsayre 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
So where and when was the "tritely titled" story published? We can also create a variant title for "You Can't Take It With You" and have the review link to it. (My 2 cents worth: both titles are trite.) Mhhutchins 03:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Some googling turned it up as published in the January 1984 issue of Fantasy Gamer. I'll create a variant and have the review link to that. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks. Grymsayre 04:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

C of C #21

Because this issue had a different editor, you will not merge it with those issues that Price edited in 1984. Just update Joshi's title record by adding the series. Mhhutchins 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering how we were going to do that. Well, I gave it a try. I hope I got it right. I do seem to be running you guys ragged these days. Thanks again for your help and patience. Grymsayre 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The series for the magazine is simply Crypt of Cthulhu. In general, each magazine series is the name of the magazine, sometimes qualified by some other information if two different magazines use the same name, also sometimes choosing one of the magazine's names if its name changed over time. I fixed up the submission to remove the "- 1984". By virtue of an EDITOR title's being in a series, it participates in the magazine series grid display (completely independent of the wording of the title). The merging of the titles into yearly buckets isn't to get yearly buckets for the magazine, but rather to keep down the clutter on the editor's bibliography page. --MartyD 10:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging titles

Hi. I have three proposed merges on hold. In each case, the author of one of the merge candidates is Duane W. Rimel, while the other candidate is credited to Duane W. Rimel and H. P. Lovecraft. Assuming that each title reflects the credit as given in the publication(s) where the title appears, we do not merge these because the author credits are not the same. Except where we're trying to combine multiple Editor records into a title representing a whole year, titles are merged only when the wording of the title and the author attribution are both identical. If something is different about either, we use a variant title instead. For this scenario, we would make the titles credited only to Rimel variants of the titles credited to both Lovecraft and Rimel (these latter ones becoming "parent" titles). If you look at the Duane W. Rimel bibliography, you'll see how "The Disinterment" is set up and appears (it has the bonus of having also appeared credited to "Rime", so there's a second variation listed).

When both titles already exist, the least-steps approach to setting this up is to find the title you want to be the parent. E.g., for "The Tree on the Hill", it would be this one, Copy the number that appears after "title.cgi?" from the link, now visit the title you want to be the variant (this one), pick "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" from the left menu, and paste the copied number into the "Parent #" field.

If the title you want to be the parent does not exist yet, you visit the title you want to be the variant, pick Make..., and then enter the information for the parent title in the lower portion of the screen. This technique is most often used when you have a title by a pseudonym and need to establish the title with the canonical author name.

I think I've seen you do some variants? Except for getting the parent title ID, it's pretty straightforward. Let me know if you need any help. Oh, and if I'm mistaken and you intended for the merges to alter those author credits, let me know that, too. Thanks, and thanks for all the hard Crypt work. --MartyD 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take the approach you describe, thanks. Grymsayre 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

C of C #27

Should this issue be titled Untold Tales by Clark Ashton Smith, #21 Hallowmas 1984, along the same lines as #10 and #21? (Note that the season is misspelled in the current record.) 13:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that myself. But unlike #10 and #21, #27 actually proclaims the magazine name and number on the cover and title page. The magazine name takes second place on the cover but first place on the title page. Personally it would not take much to convince me to give the editor credit to Steve Behrends. All in favor? Oh, and the misspelling is duly noted and will be corrected. Thanks again, Grymsayre 14:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is Behrends credited as the editor? Mhhutchins 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
No. Nobody is that I can see. But internal evidence weighs heavily in Behrend's favor. He wrote the introduction, which concludes as follows: "Robert M. Price and I would like to extend our thanks to Mr. Kuhn for his kind permission to publish the original Smith material in this issue. I would also like to publicise some of my personal debts, and thank Dr. Josephine L. Harper of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, for allowing me to quote letters from Smith to August Derleth; by John Stanley, Assistant Librarian of the John Hay Library and Curator of the Lovecraft Papers, for the quotations taken from Smith's correspondence with Lovecraft, R. H. Barlow, and L. Sprague de Camp; and I give my most heartfelt gratitude and good wishes to Dr. Mark Brown and Ms. Barbara A. Filipac of Brown University, for their many kindnesses during my two visists to the Smith collection." Grymsayre 15:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Stop the presses! In Editorial Shards for the previous issue (Crypt of Cthulhu #26) Price writes ". . . Steve Behrends, CAS scholar and editor of UNTOLD TALES . . ." So Behrends is it. I will edit the publication to reflect this, and leave a note to explain it. Grymsayre 16:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I've noticed many of the titles here are already in the database as either fragments or synopses. Strangely, the synposes were entered under the ESSAY type. Are they written as true synopses: "This happens, and this happens..."? Or are they essays as in proposals: "In this story, I will have this character do this and then this will happen..."? In any case, we'll need to merge them with the current records, and I'll let you determine both the titles and the type of each. Thanks.Mhhutchins 15:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
They are true synopses. Grymsayre 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Double Cosmos" by Clark Ashton Smith

You want to merge this title (dated 1940) with this one (dated 1983), but keep the 1983 date. Do you believe the story was first published in 1983 and that the 1940 date is incorrect? Mhhutchins 13:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've got. Per Price's Introduction (Crypt of Cthulhu #16): "'Double Cosmos' by Clark Ashton Smith is another work that has never before seen print. Readers of Smith's BLACK BOOK have seen an early synopsis of the tale as 'The Appendix' (item 38). Smith had done some work on a draft of the story under the title 'Secondary Cosmos' in late June, 1934. In a letter to R. H. Barlow, August 16, 1938, he reported that he was 'trying to finish this.' Another draft entitled 'Double Cosmos' is dated February 24, 1940. The present version is undated but is the last version completed by Smith. The manuscript, incidentally, was partially burnt in a fire at Smith's cabin, but miraculously not a word of the story was lost!" Grymsayre 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've accepted the submission with the 1983 date. Mhhutchins 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"To Saml" poems by Lovecraft

Your proposed submissions to merge this pair of poems with another pair (separately), would change the titles of the poems in Saturnalia, C of C #21. Is that your intention? Mhhutchins 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In these cases, yes. The titles on the contents page are as I entered them originally. The titles in the body of the book each have a second line which makes them match the titles of the later publications. Grymsayre 15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
As a rule, it's better to enter contents from the title pages of each content, rather than from the table of contents page. Submissions accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course. And generally I do. But when touring the long dark gallery of Lovecraft's poetry - and I'm talking the non-genre stuff here! - one's instinct is to move very quickly. I will, however, go back and see if there is anything else I may have missed. Grymsayre 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


With an existing series "Lovecraft-lorn", if you edit a title's series to be "Lovecraft-Lorn" to try to capitalize that inner "L", it doesn't actually work. The software matches what you've provided with the existing series and leaves you with "l" instead. To change it, one needs to edit the series itself. I did that, but changing "l" to "L" yielded "series already exists". So I had to change the name to something else, then change it back using "Lorn". So now it's capitalized. I also checked through the other titles in that series and changed their capitalization to match. --MartyD 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised to see that the series name had changed, since I had tried and failed to change it. But I didn't even notice that more individual titles had changed than I had gotten round to doing myself. Anyway, things should be quieter for a couple of hours. Thanks again. Grymsayre 00:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you know about the ISFDB:Help desk and ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard? Those are places you can post questions/problems and ask for help if you're trying to do something and it doesn't work. I just happened to realize what you were trying to do and what was going on, but I've been known to be far less perceptive.... :-) --MartyD 00:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Slitherer from the Slime"

I have approved various permutations of "The Slitherer from the Slime", but could you please check that the resulting credits are correct in all publication records? The story has a rather usual publication history; one is almost tempted to say an eldritch one... Ahasuerus 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Madness Out of Space"

I have approved your changes to Crypt of Cthulhu, #34 Michaelmas 1985, but could you please check the date of "The Madness Out of Space"? Wikipedia seems to list it as a "1982-1983" title and ISFDB says "1982", but there is no information on pre-1985 appearances (assuming there were any.) TIA! Ahasuerus 15:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Had to hit the books for this one. Looking at the Ballantine Books edition of THE NEW LOVECRAFT CIRCLE, the copyright notices page, I see the following: "'The Madness out of Space' copyright (c) 1982 by Crispin Burnham for ELDRITCH TALES numbers 8 and 9, 1982 and 1983, appears here by permission of the author, Peter H. Cannon." Grymsayre 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Allen Kaszowski?

Were these two covers actually credited to Allen Kaszowski? If so, we need to create a pseudonym and make them into variants. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's just me walking into walls again. I will correct both to Koszowski. Thanks, Grymsayre 04:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This can be done by editing either the pub record or the cover art's title record (recommended). It's not necessary to do both. Mhhutchins 04:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks again, Grymsayre 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

on linking reviews

Hi. I approved your link-to-title of this review, but you should make two changes to the review itself in light of data present in the database. See the "Title" and "Author" bullets of Help:Screen:EditPub#Reviews, but the gist of those is that we have decided not to create variant titles or pseudonyms solely due to variations of title or authorship cited in a review. Instead, we use the existing canonical names in place of what appears in the review and record the discrepancies in the publication's notes. Here, you should change the reviewed title to Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts and the reviewed author to Henry L. P. Beckwith, Jr. and record the originals in C of C #46. Thanks. --MartyD 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The help cleverly does not cover this case, where the review uses one author but the only recorded title uses two, but I'd say in the spirit of the above, you should do the same here -- add a second reviewed author to the review and add a note in C of C #45 that the review cites only Joshi. --MartyD 10:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The author credit on this one should also be changed and noted. FWIW, if you view that review title and click on the author, you see no sign of the title reviewed.... For this one, I have no objection to the use of "Black Water" instead of "Black Water: The Anthology of Fantastic Literature" on the review itself. Other moderators may feel otherwise, I really don't know. --MartyD 10:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have brought all three of these in line with your suggestions. Thanks, Grymsayre 12:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlinking reviews

I don't understand why you want to unlink 1312751 and 1312782? They look OK to me. BLongley 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I probably don't want to unlink them. I had previously linked them "manually" because the titles and authors in the reviews were so far off the titles and authors in the database. When it was suggested that I change the review titles and authors to match the database ones, I thought (wrongly?) that doing this would build new links, so that I no longer needed the old ones. Sorry for the confusion. Grymsayre 15:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You can keep the old link - changing the review authors/title doesn't relink them or break a link. BLongley 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Edits withdrawn. Thanks, Grymsayre 16:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu, #60 Hallowmas 1988

Did they really call her "Terry Windling" in the review? BLongley 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consistantly, title and body. It sounds like I had better ammend it. Grymsayre 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I hate "Stray Authors". BLongley 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's no longer a's a pseudonym. For some inexplicable reason, a letter to Locus is credited to "Terry Windling". That needs 'splaining! Mhhutchins 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That'll do. I don't think we're entirely clear on when to "correct" an author - we seem to adjust REVIEWs to avoid strays, but "letters" are one of the things we haven't discussed, that I recall. And no, I don't really want to join a discussion about those, unless people really want me to separate LETTERs from the ESSAY type. Still possible, but the longer we leave such changes the harder and more dangerous they are. BLongley 02:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth W. Faig, Jr.

Would it be safe to assume that Ken Faig is a pseudonym of Kenneth W. Faig, Jr.? Ahasuerus 16:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on context. In Crypt of Cthulhu, I would say yes. Grymsayre 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Done, thanks! (I was just wondering if it may have been a father/son situation.) Ahasuerus 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing contents from a container record

If you want to remove "The Ring of Hyades" from this issue, click on "Remove Titles from This Pub" under Editing tools and check the box next to the title. The "Unmerge Titles" function working from a title record is badly formed and has some strange results. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So the procedure is, first, remove the title with the bad author's name from the publication and, second, put it back with the author's name corrected? I think I can handle that. Thanks, Grymsayre 23:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the correct procedure. If the title had not already been merged with another record, then you would have been able to correct it from the pub record (that's why it was grayed out). Mhhutchins 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

C of C #12

I'm holding a submission to update this issue, but there's been no changes to the record. Mhhutchins 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On this one, as I recall, I determined that Twisted Tales was actually a comic book. I re-created the review as an essay, and now I am trying to remove the original. It sounds like I have not accomplished this. I will withdraw the edit and try again. Grymsayre 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The review record had already been removed from the pub record (I may have done it, I can't remember). Here is the "orphaned" record (as we like to call title records that are no longer associated with any pub records). Feel free to delete it. Mhhutchins 16:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of Machenstruck in C of C #65

I created a record for the book being reviewed in this issue, changed the review record to reflect the editors credited, and then linked the review to the pub's title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was beginning to notice that some of these "dead ends" were not so dead anymore. I figured somebody must be working behind the scenes. What can I say but, Thanks! Grymsayre 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That's my forte: working behind the scenes. And you'll find there's hundreds, if not thousands, of titles that are not in the db . . . yet. When they legitimately should be, and reviews in fanzines like this sometimes scratch out the more obscure ones, I'm more than happy to create records for them. Mhhutchins 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

C of C #64

I created records for these three books: Yr Obt Servt: Some Postcards of Howard Phillips Lovecraft Sent to Wilfred Blanch Talman, Pulp Man's Odyssey: The Hugh B. Cave Story, and The Voyage, and then linked them to the reviews. I think the latter novel may be nongenre. Does the review make it clear? If so, we'll need to adjust this title record to NONGENRE. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The review does indeed make it clear and I have submitted the edit you suggested. Thanks again, Grymsayre 15:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviews in C of C #64

Does the article on page 29 titled "Arthur Machen" review Arthur Machen: A Short Account of His Life and Work (first published 1963) by Aidan Reynolds and William Charlton? (Note the spelling of the first author's first name.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks that way. The review is truncated to Arthur Machen and spells the author's name with an E. But it also mentions that the book was first published in 1963. Grymsayre 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll create a record for the 1963 book, link it to the review record, correcting the author's name and noting the mispelling misspelling. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A Critical Commentary Upon (On) the Necronomicon

I'm holding the submission to merge this record titled "A Critical Commentary Upon the Necronomicon" with this one titled "A Critical Commentary on the Necronomicon". The first piece is typed as SHORTFICTION (novella), while the second is an ESSAY. According to Locus1, the first record should be "on" instead of "upon", and types it as a "facetious article" and not fiction. Your merge keeps the second's title (that sounds OK), but keeps the first's type. These non-fact articles throws us all for a loop, because we don't have a proper (i.e. standard) way to handle them. I'll leave that decision to you. If you wish to keep it as fiction, I'll accept the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my thinking. The article is the same in both publications; I have both so I know. The title is the same in both publications too; the "Upon" appears only in one table of contents. So that leaves the type. I entered it as an essay in Crypt because that is the form it takes. But it is an essay written on a fictitious basis, which is that the brief quotes from the Necronomicon, used by Lovecraft and his circle in some of their stories, are the last surviving remnants of an otherwise lost ancient text. So maybe fiction is the better choice. Please accept. Grymsayre 16:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. (Also, see my response to the C of C #12, fourth comment above.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Midnight Brushstrokes, by Allen Koszowski

I accepted the submission removing the review of this title from C of C #74 before realizing you intend to make it into an essay. I would think that an art book by Koszowski should be entered into the database and it would be appropriate to keep the review intact. Do you think the art book is not spec-fic related? Mhhutchins 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just following what I thought was the standard: no films, no recordings, no graphic novels and, by extension, no calendars and art books. Probably I misunderstood; it would not be the first time! Anyway, I will be happy to put it back, and one or two others besides. Grymsayre 22:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Artbooks by spec-fic artists are definitely IN. Even calendars. But you're correct that the first three items should be OUT. If you'll replace the review, I'll create a record for the book (actually it's a portfolio) and link it to the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition to 74, numbers 45, 53 and 67 are all affected, 67 with three separate titles. So it might take a little while . . . Grymsayre 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

C of C #69 review

I've created a record for the anthology No, But I Saw the Movie reviewed in this issue. Does the review mention the spec-fic stories published in the anthology? If so, please consider adding content records to the pub record (but spec-fic contents only), when you get a chance. And another thing: do the reviews give the prices for the books being reviewed? In creating records for some of the more obscure titles, the one thing that's usually unavailable is the price. Most reviews will provide that price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer was primarily interested in Robert Bloch's "The Real Bad Friend," described as a "neat little tale of schizophrenia" that "anticipated *Psycho* by two years." Other titles mentioned are Cornell Woolrich's "Rear Window," Daphne du Maurier's "Don't Look Now" and Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Body Snatcher" But the anthology is not slanted to the fantastic but rather to "the best short stories ever made into film." As for the price, yes, Crypt generally provides them. The price for this one was $9.95. Grymsayre 00:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll added the stories mentioned, as they all are spec-fic. I'll also update the record given the price. If you find the time, please go back over the titles reviewed in C of C, and update any pub records that don't have the price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Asceticism and Lust: The Greatest Lovecraft Revision by Cannon

Can you confirm that this piece is fiction? It is included in Cannon's essay collection "Sunset Terrace Imagery in Lovecraft" and Other Essays which I just created based on the review in C of C #75. Mhhutchins 00:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm it. Cannon's essay is a humorous piece about Lovecraft ghost-writing Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. To get the humor you would have to know that Lovecraft used to tear the covers off his copies of Weird Tales because he was embarrassed by their pictures of scantily clad ladies. Grymsayre 01:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
So you're confirming that it's fiction? You call it an "essay" in your description. Is this another case of a "facetious article" that the ISFDB doesn't handle very well? Mhhutchins 03:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's right. Price's article was very solemn and scholarly, while Cannon's is more of a tall tale. But facetious article would cover them both. Grymsayre 06:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

R. M. P.

I'm holding the submissions to change the credits to the content records that give credit to "R. M. P." When it's obvious who a "signed" credit is, it's all right to give the full name on the record. (Think of an introduction to a book which only gives the author's initials at the end.) Are these reviews signed at the end, or are they credited as by "R. M. P." at the heading of the reviews? By changing the credits of these reviews to "R. M. P.", you'd have to make that into a pseudonym for Robert M. Price, then make variant records of each one. I would suggest adding a note in the pub record's Note Field that the reviews are signed by "R. M. P." (if that's the case). I don't know if this is stated in the rules but it's the working standard for the time I've been here. You may find there are initial-credited records in the database, but most of those are by unknown persons or based on artist's signatures of uncredited artwork. Mhhutchins 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Stub records for missing Crypt of Cthulhu issues

I added about a half-dozen or so missing issues of C of C a couple of days ago, to help you out when you get to that point. I noticed you've removed the "Stub record" indication without actually adding the contents. Do you intend to go back and add the contents? Do you have these issues? If not, I can add contents from the Miller/Contento index. Mhhutchins 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the proliferation of stubs a few days back. It made me wonder if all our activity had attracted the attention of another fan or two. Thanks for the help, in that and in many other things. I have restored the "Stub record" indication where applicable. I have also created stub records for the rest of the run. That is about as much as I can do with them since, as you surmise, I do not have these later issues. So please, add away with my blessing. As for me, I still have a bit of tweaking to do before the end. Grymsayre 05:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Title removals

What has prompted the removal of titles from many issues of C o C? I accepted several issues and placed the others on hold until I can understand the reasoning for doing this. Of those that I accepted, I've had to go back and delete the orphan title records. I just need to know if this is your intention and I'm not wasting time by deleting the records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am submitting two kinds of deletion. The first is column fillers that I had previously entered as essays. These are blocks an inch or so long, containing maybe 50 words, whose only reason for existing is to fill an awkward white space on a page. A typical recipe is, take brief snippet of Lovecraft or another, put a semi-humorous title over it and draw a box around it. Others are, "Hey, it's Lovecraft's birthday this month!" or "Hey, we saw some of our friends on TV!" You get the idea. And the second kind of deletion is announcements that I had previously entered as reviews. These typically appear at the end of the review section, but they differ from the real reviews in that they are short, uncredited and have nothing to say about the publication except that it is out and may be obtained from such and such a publisher for such and such a price. I tried to include this stuff early on but soon came to my senses. Now I am trying to bring the earlier issues in line with the later ones. I believe I have them all pending now. Grymsayre 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll accept the submissions. Can you delete the orphaned titles or would you need help to do that? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I can do that, gladly. Thanks, Grymsayre 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can understand deleting the non-Reviews, but if they do have information about prices and can be tracked down to a particular edition that doesn't already have that info, it would be a good secondary source to note. BLongley 03:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, congratulations on passing your first thousand contributions! There's only 50 of us that have stuck this out longer, it seems. BLongley 03:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A thousand contributions! These things certainly do creep up on one, don't they? No wonder I was beginning to think I was getting a feel for the work! But the second thousand will take a bit longer, since my glory days are now behind me. That last batch of deletions wound up my part in CoC. The project was larger than I thought it would be, but it was also more fun. And I would be foolish not to recognize that it would have taken much longer and been a lot less fun without the patient assistance of you, my mentors, guides and safety nets. My sincerest thanks to you all. Grymsayre 13:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ralph E. Vaughn

Hi, in this verified pub could you please check whether there author's last name on page 37 is Vaughn or VaughAn. Cheers, P-Brane 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Crypt of Cthulhu, #59 Michaelmas 1988

Just a quick note that I have turned William Pugmire in your verified Crypt of Cthulhu, #59 Michaelmas 1988 into a pseudonym of W. H. Pugmire. Ahasuerus 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The House of the Worm

I expanded the notes for Myers' The House of the Worm, including replacing the Wikipedia reference with a more direct one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


I've left a message on the talk page of the editor who entered and verified this record. This is the first step to be taken on changing vital information in a primary-verified record. Making a submission with a message in the Note to Moderator field is not an efficient way to update the record. (Your submission actually didn't "update" the record.) Your evidence is convincing, but I'll leave it up to the primary verifier to make the final decision. If he disagrees about the date, I'll add a note about the strong evidence that leads to another publication date. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael did notify me, and of course you were correct. Even my own records showed the earlier date; I'm at a loss to understand why I entered the later date, to be honest. Thanks for catching this. If you find I screwed up again, please don't hesitate to tell me. I'm prone to typos and careless mistakes, and certainly don't take offense to having them brought to my attention. Bob 18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #1 - #10

I have begun to go through your entries to Crypt of Cthulhu to verify the entered issues and enter the rest. You've done a marvelous job so far. I have entered information in the notes to each issue: "Saddle stapled, wraps. Page numbers do not include covers." I also enter where the cover artist is credited and where appropriate, the type of "special issue" each volume is. It two cases, I uploaded new cover scans: #3 did not bring up a scan and #9 is a wrap-around. #8 is also a wrap-around, and I'll upload that as well when the submissions are approved. I also entered Price as the cover artist on #10, since he claims credit on the copyright page. From this point on, I'll only notify you when I feel a change other than to the notes or cover scan should be made, if that's o.k. with you. Bob 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Saturnalia and Other Poems

I would like to make Saturnalia a variant title, and make the parent "Crypt of Cthulhu #21, Eastertide 1984 - Saturnalia and Other Poems by H. P. Lovecraft". I would also make Price the co-editor. This will make the pub appear in the list of Crypts where it is easy to find and will reflect what it truly is. As you know, Price played around with the titles at times (like #16, titled "Tales from the Crypt of Cthulhu", but I think we should avoid confusion by seeing that each issue can easily be identified as a Crypt. Please let me know if you agree. Bob 15:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Issue 21 appears on both the issue grid for Crypt of Cthulhu and on the issue listing. Price shouldn't be credited in the ISFDB record if he's not credited in the publication. ISFDB records should reflect what is stated in the publication, even at the expense of display and possible confusion. Looking at both of the Crypt of Cthulhu lists, there doesn't seem to be a problem with either. Mhhutchins 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they appear on the grid and issue listing. But I didn't discover either of these for some time after I started using the data base, in fact not until I became an editor. I would have gone to Price's name, not found the pub and assumed it wasn't in the data base. Ah, well, let confusion reign! I still think the name change is a good idea. Bob 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Untold Tales

Similarly to the above, I would like to change the title of Untold Tales to "Crypt of Cthulhu #27, Hallowmas 1984 - Untold Tales by Clark Ashton Smith". I have added Price as an editor, based on the fact that he admits he made a mistake when he added "The Brahman's Wisdom" to the pub in Crypt #26 Editorial Shards. He was clearly an editor. No matter who he credits with editing Crypt issues, he clearly retained overall editorial control. Bob 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am holding this for discussion. As above, we do not usually add editor credits for people not so credited in the actual publication. -DES Talk 05:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Medusa and Other Poems

I would also like to change the title of this pub to "Crypt of Cthulhu #44, Yuletide 1986 - Medusa & Other Poems by H. P. Lovecraft". I felt obliged to change the editor to Robert M. Price. He is credited as editor on the back cover, and Joshi is not credited as editor anywhere in the pub. If that edit is approved, I'll enter a variant and add Joshi as a second editor. I would like to change the title at that time if you agree to the change. Bob 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Grymsayre isn't currently able to edit his talk page, but he added this note to the submission to revert the changes that Bob suggested:
I challenge Biochembob's claim that Robert M. Price is credited as the editor on the back cover. Price's name is there all right, but not to credit him as editor of the book. It is there to claim copyright for the book's introductory materials, through Cryptic Publications, an entity of which Price is the editor ("Introductory Materials/Cryptic Publications/Robert M. Price, Editor"). When I go to Joshi's own online bibliography (, the section listing his editions of Lovecraft, I find item 10, "Medusa and Other Poems," listed without any editorial co-credit for Price. And without any "by H. P. Lovecraft" in the title either. Sorry to be so verbose here, but my talk page seems to be broken. Grymsayre
Very likely, I was the moderator who accepted Bob's submission to change the editor of this record, and this one (I'm holding the other submission by Grymsayre that reverts the editor credit to his original verified record.) After some contentious debate, Bob insisted that Price was explicitly credited as the editor of these issues. I'll let the two of you discuss the matter, while I hold Grymsayre's submissions. Mhhutchins 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm in! Thanks, Mhhutchins. Evidently I have been away so long that I simply forgot how things work around here. I thought that might be the case. As for the question at hand, let me begin by saying how pleased I am that someone has stepped in to complete the run of Crypt. Let me also say that I don't blame anyone for wanting to inject a little order into its chaos. I understand the urge, as so I think must anyone who participates in a project like ISFDB. It's just that in these three cases I don't think the material supports it. Grymsayre 01:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Glad you're back! I never said that Joshi wasn't the editor, I always assumed he was. But he isn't credited in the pub. He may be credited everywhere else, but I've been told repeatedly that what should be entered is what's in the pub. It would then be proper to credit Joshi in a variant. The ONLY editor credited in the pub is Price. If you think that isn't a legitimate credit, take it out in the variant. I'm not trying to rob Joshi of the credit, only show what's in the pub. Bob 18
51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand. My position, however, is that Price is NOT credited as editor in the pub. Here for reference is the complete back cover text:
Copyright (C) 1986
[blank line]
Cover art by Jason C. Eckhardt
[blank line]
Introductory material by
Cryptic Publications
Robert M. Price, Editor
107 East James Street
Mount Olive, North Carolina 23635
There is nothing here that credits Price with editing Medusa and Other Poems. He is named as the editor of Cryptic Publications, but that is hardly the same thing. You may argue that Medusa and Other Poems was published by Cryptic Publications and therefore the Cryptic Publications editor must have edited it. But such an argument is not the same as a credit in the pub. Besides, what would be the point since we have already agreed that Joshi was the editor? Grymsayre 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Grymsayre's submissions do the following:

  • Issue 21: Removes "by H. P. Lovecraft" from the title field.
  • Issue 27: Removes "by Clark Ashton Smith" from the title field, and changes the editor field from Robert M. Price to Steve Behrends
  • Issue 44: Removes "by H. P. Lovecraft" from the title field and changes the editor field from Robert M. Price to S. T. Joshi

I'm reluctant to remove the "by" credit from the title field, because I'm looking at the scans of the issues' covers and these bylines are obviously there. I don't see what is achieved by removing them, except to make the display of the issues cleaner, and that has no bearing in the ISFDB. By retaining these bylines, the true authors of the publications are credited even though none will show up on the authors' ISFDB summary pages. And that's a shame, in my opinion. If I had my druthers, I'd change the types of these records from MAGAZINE to COLLECTION and then credit the actual authors (Lovecraft and Smith) in the author field instead of the editors. That would solve the whole problem about which editor to credit.

It seems each of you agree that no editor is explicitly credited as the editor of the collection (we're not talking about the editor of the magazine here.) If strict ISFDB standards were followed here, the editor field would be entered as "uncredited", and then it could be varianted to the true editor of the collection (not the magazine). In a situation where two primary verifiers can't agree if an exception should be made to the standards, our only recourse is to follow the standards to the letter. I will not do this unless you are unable to reach a compromise. Mhhutchins 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly live with that, Michael. My major point on this has always been that Joshi (and Behrends in issue 27) was not credited as the editor in the pub. I still think Price is given as editor (the lines above deal with copyright, but then the subject shifts to who is editor), but if you don't agree, then leave the editor as uncredited (for both pubs). The other changes I leave up to the original verifier; it's always questionable for me whether or not to add what appear to be subtitles to the title of pubs. I thought in the three cases cited that the extra words added clarity to what the pub was about. Bob 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No need to cut the baby in half, Solomon. I will retire into peaceful obscurity and leave Bob to do as he likes. Grymsayre 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Settler's Well" or " Settler's Wall"?

Could you please double check whether Robert A. W. Lowndes's "Settler's Well" in your verified Crypt of Cthulhu, #62 Candlemas 1989 is spelled "Settler's Wall"? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this discussion with another verifier:
  • It's "Well" in the ToC, but "Wall" at the top of the story.
so I have changed the title and added notes to the pub. Ahasuerus 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I have also removed the period after the word "No" in "On H. P. Lovecraft's Views of Weird Fiction" as per Bob's feedback. Ahasuerus 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed "Wall" at the top of the story. I cannot see what "No" refers to. Grymsayre 07:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to type "On". Dyslexia strikes again... Ahasuerus 09:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu, #51 Hallowmas 1987

You verified this publication with a letter by "Jessica Amanda Salmanson", which is a misspelling of the author's actual name: "Jessica Amanda Salmonson". I've set that as a pseudonym to her actual name, but just to be safe could you check and make sure that was a typo in the original magazine? (An easy type to make, so it seems likely.) Thanks, Chavey 15:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is "Salmonson" in the original magazine, so no need for a pseudonym. The typo was mine alone. Grymsayre 07:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Black Stone" in CoC #3

I hope you really haven't retired into obscurity.... I accepted an addition of "The Black Stone" to your verified CoC #3 based on this corroboration. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this one. The Howard verse, all four lines of it, is certainly present, but as a quotation embedded in an article entitled "The Borrower Beneath." A famous Lovecraft couplet is similarly embedded a few lines above the Howard. Grymsayre 07:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

David E. Schultz

Just a note that the spelling of David E. Schultz's first name has been changed from "Davd" to "David" in your verified Crypt of Cthulhu, #12 Eastertide 1983. Also, "David E Schultz" has been changed to "David E. Schultz" in your verified Crypt of Cthulhu, #65 St. John's Eve 1989. Ahasuerus 08:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Both changes sound good to me. Grymsayre 07:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Crypt of Cthulhu, #45 Candlemas 1987"

FYI, the following note has been added to your verified Crypt of Cthulhu, #45 Candlemas 1987 by User:Biomassbob: "The letter on p. 40 is obviously not written by Lovecraft; it is signed "H. P. Lovecraft / Swan Point Cemetery / Providence, RI". Real author unknown." Ahasuerus 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not obviously enough, I guess. Grymsayre 07:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Worlds of Cthulhu

I accepted the submission to update this record even though you did not give the source of your data or advise the moderator that you're working from the primary source (the actual book). Also, you should not enter two prices in the price field. You can note additional states of the edition (and their prices) in the note field, or optionally, create an entirely new record for each state (even if they're the same edition). Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have incorporated and verified according to your suggestions. Grymsayre 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Worlds of Cthulhu

I just added the limited edition of Worlds of Cthulhu cloning your copy. Please feel free to link to the dust jacket scan that I uploaded. Additionally, I noticed that you had "The Tower of Mormoroth" on page 206, whereas the introduction begins on page 205. It appears to be wrong in the table of contents. I've added Kirk's artwork as individual items. There is no requirement that it is done this way and the single item you added for all his illustrations is fine. You don't really need to detail the limited edition in your record, since it has a different ISBN. However, if you do, the signature page is actually bound in rather than tipped in. Finally, you didn't give a source for the month and day of publication. I can't find anything more exact than 2012 in my copy. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have submitted modifications to the trade edition to bring it more in line with the limited one. Basically, I added the items you added, with the exception of the signature page, and deleted references to the limited edition in the description. Also I added the cover URL. I will have to remove October 31 from the publication dates. The publisher announced that date on his website, so it was at the back of my mind. But evidently he was not confident enough to typeset it before the event. Grymsayre 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Publication date for Worlds of Cthulhu

According to F&B's Facebook page, they started mailing out the pre-orders of the trade edition of Worlds of Cthulhu on October 22, 2012. And copies of the limited were mailed the week of November 19, 2012. So isn't it safe to give their projected publication date of October 31, 2012 in the ISFDB records? I'm holding your submission to change the date to just 2012-00-00. Personally, I feel it's better to be close, than to have nothing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the submission, but please consider using the publisher's publication date, even if it's unstated in the book. Verifiable secondary sources can be used to confirm unstated data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks. Grymsayre 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Country of the Worm

Amazon's ASIN is not the publisher's catalog number, and should not be entered into the ISFDB record's ISBN/Catalog # field. You have the option of recording the ASIN in the record's Note field. I've done that for this record. If you choose to number the stories using the Page number field (something which is nonstandard ISFDB practice), you must make that clear in the record's Note field. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 01:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, you didn't note the source of your data, so I'm assuming you're working from the actual publication. Please do a primary verification of the record when you get a chance. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: I changed the publication date from February 23 to March 23 based on the Amazon listing. Was this a typo or does your source give the date as February 23? Mhhutchins 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting things in order. You were right about the publication date. I will verify as soon as I leave this page. Grymsayre 14:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dark Wisdom

I rejected your submission to add a new publication record for the ebook verion. Because this is somewhat a reprint of an earlier edition, it would have been better to clone the original record to avoid having to merge the title records of the contents. So that's what I did and here is the record for the ebook. Most of my info came from your submission, plus more data from A question about "The Fourth Cryptical Book of Hsan" (which wasn't included in your submission, but can be seen in the Amazon "Look Inside"): is it the same piece as "The Third Cryptical Book of Hsan" published in Crypt of Cthulhu #23? I assumed so based on the copyright page, and made it into a variant title. If this isn't the same work, I can reverse the variant. Mhhutchins 02:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Fourth Cryptical Book of Hsan" is indeed a variant title of the "Third." I left it out since it is used as the epitaph (if that is the word) for the collection rather than a collected item, but I will defer to you. The only error that I see is the inclusion of an interior artwork credit. There is no interior artwork in the ebook edition. I will remove and verify. Thanks again. Grymsayre 14:16, 1 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)

Necronomicon preface

Please see this discussion regarding the title type of de Camp's preface to the Necronomicon. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools