Talk:H. P. Lovecraft bibliography

Untitled
couldn't this just be put under lovecrafts own site?

It's too long and would clutter up an otherwise beautiful article. --Alex S 02:00, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Wherever it ends up, it would be well to alphabetize (and perhaps another list by date?). ww 14:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, the Fiction section could stand do with some organization into novel, short story, etc. BillFlis 13:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think it works best to simply leave it the way it is, and doesn't need to be divided further into novels and short stories. Little notes could be put by them in parantheses about what kind of fiction it is (e.g. (short story)). Elizabennet 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the benefit in alphabetizing. --DocumentN (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisions
I'm not sure it makes sense to red-link all the revisions--many of them are almost never talked about, making a worthwhile article about them nearly impossible. Nareek 03:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this. I don't think that links for the revisions are necessary, and I agree that there isn't enough information to make new articles on each.Elizabennet 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource
At the top there is a link to wikisource. I was wondering if there should be a link to the wikisource of each story/novel next to the title. Could be useful. For example: "The Shadow on Innsmouth" (wikisource link)Elizabennet 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual pages
OK, this is my last note for today (I think). I'm wondering if there should be some kind of standard for where to put the link to the wikisource material. Some pages it's at the top, some at the synopsis, and others at the bottom with references. I didn't find anything on this topic at the wikisource area of wikipedia. I just like it all to look... neat. And cohesive. :) -Elizabennet 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a Wikisource link next to each story seems like a fine idea. I was going to do that to one of the anthology pages, where the titles all linked to Wikisource--linking to the WP pages seemed like a better idea, but having maybe a footnote-style link next to each title seems helpful.


 * Thanks for tidying up all the Wikisource links in the articles. I'm all for neatness and cohesion!  I put in some of those, and some of them ended up in the Synopsis just because that was the top section when I did it.  But maybe Synopsis isn't a bad place for it--like an off-ramp for people who might want to read the whole thing instead?  Anyplace consistent is better than placing it randomly, though. Nareek 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

featured list
I cannot see why a list this complete isn't included in the featured lists.65.147.176.5 01:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete Edition?
Hello Experts!

I was searching for a complete edition of H. P. Lovecrafts work, but only found a german one, which is still not complete, afaik. Maybe one of you could tell me if there is one, and where I could find it. Thank you in advance,

CT

The Barnes & Noble edition, H. P. Lovecraft: The Fiction published in 2008, contains ALL of Lovecraft's own fiction (including his juvenilia), plus "Under the Pyramids" and "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" and "Supernatural Horror in Literature". The first printing is riddled with typos, but the second, which should appear in fall of 2009, should be corrected. There is no complete edition of the revisions -- most can be found in The Horror in the Museum and Other Revisions, but others are scattered in Dagon and Other Macabre Tales and Eyes of the God (the latter a collection of the fiction of R. H. Barlow). And for the complete text of "The Challenge from Beyond" you need for example Nameless Cults or the Necronomicon Press booklet The Challenge from Beyond.62.88.193.75 (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort order
Right now the lists seem to be inconsistently sorted; some are chronological and some are alphabetical. Is there any particular reason a chronological list wouldn't be more generally useful than an alphabetical one? --DocumentN (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete List?
I am wondering why some stories are missing like "The Horror from the Middle Span" and "Witches Hollow"?  --CliffordtheRed (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome to add any titles forgotten. After all building a bibliography, especially one of the likes of Lovecraft, is a long process that can only benefit from collective work.--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an extremely good reason for "The Horror from the Middle Span" and "Witches Hollow" being omitted: they were not written by Lovecraft. They were written by August Derleth, based on an inspirational line or two taken from Lovecraft's Commonplace Book. IMO, they are not even collaborations, since Derleth wrote the complete text all by himself.62.88.193.75 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisoned_with_the_Pharaohs a collaboration with Harry Houdini.

List
Shouldn't the short stories of this list be in quotation marks, rather than italisation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdClose (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetic ordering?
The style-guide for list of works says that ordering should be in chronological, not alphabetic order. Not just the style guide, but pretty much any librarian would agree with that. The list of fictional works is in alphabetic order, so I'm proposing to re-arrange them. On of the problems is that some of the works were concurrent; he apparently worked on several stories at one, probably working on short-stories in the middle of novels and the like (supposition on my part, there). If there is no disagreement, I'll re-order them based on the dates given, from specific to generic; i.e., From Beyond (16 November 1920) would come before Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family (1920). Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll have my thanks if you do it, FWIW. --DocumentN (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and there you have it. Some extra eyes would be appreciated, to verify that I didn't drop anything. I tried to keep it sorted by the first date given, assuming that is the date he started to write the material, even if it spanned multiple periods. Dates which aren't specific are listed after specific dates, etc. Should be fairly easy to determine the sort key. I've also left whitespace in the section; even if it's not parsed and displayed, it should make visually editing easier on the eyes. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't lists of works normally sorted by publication date, though? --DocumentN (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, pfft. I'll get back to it shortly, I don't know why, but this one is a PITA for some reason. I might try to get my hands on the canonical list referred in the lead para, just for verification sake. If you disagree with how it is now (inception, not pub), revert back to the alpha list, I won't dispute. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I'm lazy, and the current order is better than nothing. --DocumentN (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Try this one. It's sandboxed, as it's a pretty major change, and I'd rather not move it into mainspace until I get some opinion. It's just a brute-force conversion to a sortable table; the dates need massaging into ISO or something a little so that the sort order will actually work. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I attempted the massaging, but I was basically making up the method as I went along, so I'm also not sure it's ready to put in the main article yet. Issues: (1) If we go with the "xx" scheme, it should probably be applied consistently to all uncertain dates, and documented. (2) I'm not sure how to handle seasonal dates. (3) I'm not sure how to handle date ranges; it looks wrong to me to have 1920-21 appear above 1919-21. --DocumentN (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * wow, that looks fantastic so far! I'll give a few days before incorporating this into the article, so others may offer input; either that or you're feeling bold, have at it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. --DocumentN (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New Stories??
I've noticed the addition of 5 new stories in the "Collaborations, revisions, and ghostwritings" section but have never heard or read of any of them in any official references. Can they be verified?

The stories are:


 * "Four o'clock" with Sonia Greene
 * "The hoard of the wizard-beast" and "The slaying of the monster" with Robert Barlow
 * "Bothon" with Henry S. Whitehead
 * "The sorcery of Aphlar" with Duane W. Rimel

— Danial79 (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was Joshi's conclusion in H. P. Lovecraft: A Life that Sonia Greene probably had help from HPL in writing "Four O'Clock". The Barlow stories are genuine collaborations, published by Necronomicon Press in 1994 (that edition includes facsimiles of the original manuscripts). "Bothon" was supposedly based on an idea by Lovecraft, but I'm not certain whether there is any Lovecraft text in it, so that may have to go. Also not sure about "The Sorcery of Aphlar", although it does ring a bell (it may be in the "Revisions" issue of Crypt of Cthulhu). But the Barlow stories, anyway, definitely belong.62.88.128.21 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Arkham House editions
Is there a reason that the bibliography omits the original Arkham House editions, such as The Outsider and Others, instead only listing the newer, corrected editions? My preference would be to add them, as they are certainly the most historically important volumes. GCL (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tables
Hey there, I intend to work on any pages that remotely have to do with Lovecraft for the next while, so decided this would be a good place to start. Thought the current list format didn't look to well, so I started putting the second section into a table like the first part. I'll leave it on the talk page for a week in case there are any objection or comments, first time doing a table of this sort so my apologies if it didn't turn out too well. If everyone seems to like it I'll put the rest of the page in table format as well, to get some consistancy - Thanks in advance, NeilHynes - TalkEdits 19:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no one posted concerns, I'm going to be bold and add it to the article, cheers, NeilHynes - TalkEdits 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CM Eddy collaborations
In the HP Podcast cover of "The Unnamable," the hosts discuss Lovecraft's collaboration with CM Eddy including the stories "The Loved Dead" and "The Ghost Eater." Also, according to THE ANNOTATED REVISIONS AND COLLABORATIONS OF H. P. LOVECRAFT edited by S. T. Joshi (hppodcast forum), "Ashes" was a Eddy/Lovecraft story. Can anyone confirm these? -CaptainJae (talk)

Yes. Also "Deaf, Dumb, and Blind". Why aren't these included already? 62.88.254.62 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They should be. 213.113.159.191 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)