- LibraryThing
- All topics
- Hot topics
- Book discussions
- All discussions
- Your LibraryThing
- Join to start using.
 |
series to move to publisher seriesJoin LibraryThing to post. 4r.orrisonNov 13, 2010, 10:31am 
I was going by the description that already existed on the series, stating that it wasn't. (I edited the description on the regular series to link to the publishers series, but it did already exist.) 5rsterlingNov 13, 2010, 10:34am
Was the description correct, though? It's an honest question. I didn't see any explanation of why it can't count as a series in the series description. Maybe it used to be there. 6r.orrisonNov 13, 2010, 10:38am
Honestly, I don't know. I took at at its word. While its status as a regular series may be open to question, it's certainly not wrong as a publisher series, is it? 7rsterlingNov 13, 2010, 10:42am
I guess not, I just don't see the point of undoing series that still count as series under the LT guidelines. Maybe this one doesn't, but it's not immediately obvious why not. I'm searching a few titles to see if I can find any that the series doesn't have a monopoly over; maybe there are some. 9AnneliNov 14, 2010, 9:02am
I moved the series Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia into the publisher series field.
I moved the titles in the Oxford Classical Texts series into the publisher series field.
I moved the titles in the Thames and Hudson World of Art series into the publisher series field.
This series needs to be changed to a publisher series: http://www.librarything.com/series/Insel-B%C3%BCchereiI'm running into some problems, however. For many of the titles, the series does not appear in the Common Knowledge fields on either the .com or .de sites. How does one find where the series information is being stored and remove it in this case??
#12
The main history button (on the same line as the common knowledge header) gives the history for every bit of CK data that's been entered. It looks as if some of that series was entered through the Dutch site.
http://www.librarything.com/series/Point+HorrorI had always thought Point Horror was a publisher's series, because many of the books have editions that aren't "Point Horror". But I own very few of the books and maybe someone else can tell me if it should stay as a Series-series?
Is there a separate thread for discussing the Loeb series? And is official policy now to list that as a publisher series? That makes sense to me. I had mine listed as general series before, but that can get confusing since most of them belong to another ancient series of works.
I have over 30 Loebs in my collection. I'll go through them and edit accordingly if it hasn't been done already.
What are we doing about new editions vs. old editions? Many of the Loebs have a new edition or revision, but the series number remains the same (for example, there is now a new Plautus volume 1 Loeb, Loeb Classical Library no. 60 - same number, but new edition). Journals deal with this by prefixing the number with 'n.s.' or something similar.
I don't think there is a separate thread for discussing the Loebs. Go ahead and create one if you feel that would be useful.
As I explained in the Ancient History group - yes, I do think it's better to list them as a publisher series. Some of them are unique to Loeb, mostly because of the way they have been split in multi-volume works, but mostly there will be other editions. 17circeusEdited: Dec 13, 2010, 8:21pm
Here's a bunch that I spotted in my list:
(List deleted, see below)
I think the TIME-Life ones all qualify as regular series; I've never run into a reprint among any of them, and I had a lot when I was a kid!
Well, they do occasionally turn up in other language Time / Time-Life series. But essentially those are al the same and all owned by T/L (as far as I know). I think they qualify. 20circeusDec 13, 2010, 7:02pm
Matt Indeed,mine are in French translation. I'm not 100% clear whether they are a "series" or "publisher series". they seem to thread a fine line between them. I'd ascribe the lack of reprint primarily to the fact that most of these books become outdated (at least in look) fairly fast.
Circeus, how many of yours say that they are by the Editors of TIME-Life, whether as primary or secondary author?
ETA: Perhaps I should also ask, how many don't? 22BarkingMattEdited: Dec 13, 2010, 7:20pm
> 20: Okay, yes, you do have a real problem there. The question you have to ask yourself - I think - is : does Time-Life (or any dependent of that huge conglomerate) have some real monopoly on these publications. If so, it's a series. If not, it's a publishers series.
Tricky thing to decide!
GURPS is absolutely not a publisher series. It's the fully owned property of Steve Jackson Games, none of their books have been reprinted by any other company, and the few books from other companies have been done under license. 25circeusEdited: Dec 13, 2010, 8:26pm
I've tended to regard as publisher series series that are merely strongly multi-authored, particularly in non-fiction. My bad. (and despite this, I still tend to view Books in Library and Information Science as more of a publisher's series...)
You've got to forget any conceptions you've had about what publisher series means. In LT it means those series that don't qualify for the Series field. Which just means any series where some of the editions of the individual works might not belong to the series. 27circeusDec 13, 2010, 8:54pm
Well, I have been equating it with "Collection" which is narrower than our "Series" but broader than the "Publisher series"...
26, "In LT it means those series that don't qualify for the Series field."
Did Tim say this somewhere? In my view, nobody knows anything about anything at all unless Tim says it. AFAIK, nobody knows anything about publisher series except what we used to know (and misinterpret) from before we had them.
That's what I gleaned from the conversations when Tim introduced Publisher Series. He was asked if publisher series that were currently in the Series field should be moved and he said not to as long as they don't have editions that can be outside the series.
Is this the post you mean? http://www.librarything.com/topic/102076#2295289Tim said, "I think publisher series should be reserved for things where work splits series/not series. Every Dummies book is a Dummies book. Every Star Wars book is a Star Wars book. Every Huck Finn is not a Harvard Classics book. Actually, I more-than-think this." I *think* Tim said that in response to King Rat's, "Should we be moving even the exclusive publisher series over to it? (Like For Dummies...) I realize the distinctions will need some hashing out, but if that's the general intent the discussion could start on that. And does Star Wars, for instance, count as a publisher series or an author series?" Nothing new, IMO. As I said before, we are in the same spot as before. I think some people have elasticized the concept ... 31jjwilson61Edited: Dec 14, 2010, 10:00am
I think this it's pretty clear. Series that are based on a character or a setting like Star Wars are always allowed in Series because if my Star Wars book is always as Star Wars book no matter who published it.
ETA: And I don't see where the term author series is helpful because the distinction between the two series fields has nothing to do with how many authors are involved.
So every Cinderella book ought to be in a Series.
No, because they aren't intended to form a series. They're all basically the same story told in different ways so there's no time element that one story follows another.
There's no time element to the Dummies. And Cinderella is changing in ways you wouldn't believe.
But seriously, I understand. What you've done is bring back to the discussion the elements of a Series, one of which is intentional purpose on the part of the creator.
I just hope that people understand that just because the "author" field is filled in with XYZ Publishing Giant does not mean the works must all therefore be in Publisher Series only. 35gilroyDec 14, 2010, 1:37pm
#23
Do any of the Harlequin novels get published by other companies? I thought all Harlequin novels were theirs and remained so. I wouldn't think any of their series moved from Series to Publisher's series. 36jjwilson61Edited: Dec 14, 2010, 5:12pm
34> If you look back you'll find that I always thought it was a mistake to use the same field for the Narnia type series and the For Dummies type series, so my current opinion is that he just compounded his error by creating a Publisher Series field but allowing some of the publisher series to stay in the Series field.
36, but wait. "Not allowing?" What?
"... compounded his error by creating a Publisher Series field but not allowing some of the publisher series to stay in the Series field"
This I do not understand. Which are not allowed to stay, and in what sense are you using 'publisher series' there?
#23: My problem with the Wiki here is that moving series back and forth is a lot of work, and the Wiki encourages it to be silently and without discussion.
...I had been assuming that "series" was for books written specifically to be a part of that series; "publisher series" was for groups of editions which were defined by the way they were published. (*with existing caveats about definitions of intent, etc. from when series was first introduced.) Is there a reason the same series can't be in both fields? That something like, say, Readings from Scientific American or the Dummies books couldn't be both a series-series *and* a publisher's series? That was what I was planning to do...
This message has been deleted by its author.
37 ...he just compounded his error by creating a Publisher Series field but not allowing some of the publisher series to stay in the Series field.
I didn't mean to put that not in there. Try this:
...he just compounded his error by creating a Publisher Series field but allowing some of the publisher series to stay in the Series field. 42jjwilson61Edited: Dec 14, 2010, 5:15pm
39> ...I had been assuming that "series" was for books written specifically to be a part of that series; "publisher series" was for groups of editions which were defined by the way they were published.
Yeah, you'd think that's what it means, but given the history of the fields it's not.
Putting series in both fields would be unnecessarily duplicative. Please don't do it.
41, now you are going against the grain. If Tim says xyz is a Series, that's what it is, right? But you're saying some of them are 'publisher series' in your estimation. And that just keeps the argument/discussion/need for definition going. He has always said Dummies are Series. He has now said Star Wars are Series. So that's what they ARE. 44jjwilson61Edited: Dec 14, 2010, 6:36pm
43> Of course. I was just letting you know that while I was describing what I believe the rules for Series and Publisher Series are, that I'm not really a true believer for those definitions.
44, Good. I understand. I don't know what I think, really. I know it doesn't matter! I'm just carrying on with my carrying on ...
Yes, books published by Harlequin and other category romance publishers are frequently published in multiple series by the same publisher ("Harlequin Presents", "Harlequin Presents Classics") and, if an author gets big, will often be republished by other publishers. They are generally *original* to the series when published, but pretty much all the category romance series are "swiss-cheesed" with items republished elsewhere.
So, they're publisher series. Which seems kind of obvious, anyway.
Cinderella books aren't a series, but many different retellings of the same story. You might say they have the same character, or are based on the same meta-work ... but that would be a character field (wouldn't work with different names) or a "relation-to-other-works" field (which we don't have). 48melannenDec 14, 2010, 11:46pm
>>42 : Strangely, having followed this discussion since before CK existed, I have never seen a consensus in that regard. All the arguments for other definitions either a) break Tom Swift or b) require that nonfiction series be intrinsically different than fiction series somehow, and either case removes the basic utility of the "series" field for a great many users.
So I suppose I will have to just hope that people don't go in and try to "fix" my Tom Swift series data for me by moving it to a publisher's series. (which reminds me, it is time to go attempt to clean up Tom Swift again, oh joy.)
What is the argument I missed that putting a series in both fields harms LT's data? I wouldn't go adding a new series to both fields, but if there's legitimate reason why a series is an edge case, and given how much work it is to add back, and that deleting a series may cause data loss that can't be duplicated on a publisher's series given current capabilities, I don't see where the harm happens in adding a publisher's series while leaving the existing series data intact.
You know, we could probably solve a lot of these problems by ditching Publisher Series and having each line of the Series entry have a checkbox saying "applies to all editions of this work". I know, we'd still have some arguments about whether a work created for a series like Harlequin retains an essential "Harlequin-ness" even when it's republished under completely different circumstances later. But I think it could address some of the things people get hung up on. 50melannenDec 15, 2010, 12:30am
That would help some! (Of course, it would probably also mean waiting for proper edition management. And, yeah, it wouldn't solve everything: the basic argument about what part of "series-ness" is intrinsic to a work rather than edition would still be there. ... really, the answer is that the whole thing is fundamentally intractable and I should have kept my three-years-long resolution not to dive into these arguments. :P ) 51brightcopyEdited: Dec 15, 2010, 12:42am
50> Yeah, I was fighting the urge to join in this time after having seen how useless the discussion was before without Tim actually being involved. But then I thought of the whole Series w/ a checkbox idea and just had to throw it out there. I think it'd be useable without an editions layer. It'd basically be the same as Publisher Series is now, in that it doesn't apply to all editions even though it's at the work level. My main reasoning for the way I suggested is that it'd boil down the ambiguity and leave only one thing left to argue about - does this series apply to all editions of the work. Right now, there's arguments about that, but arguments about three or for other issues when it comes to Series/Publisher Series.
ETA: One thing I didn't mention was something that would probably be a poison pill for Tim - optionality. For something like this, I'd want an option somewhere on my account that says "include series that do not apply to all editions of a work." That would control whether those appear in the top series line on a work page and in the Series field on my catalog view. That would also satisfy some of the people that field like the Publisher Series is too much of a second-class field. 52melannenEdited: Dec 15, 2010, 12:59am
>51: "Does this series apply to all editions of the work" is more or less what it boils down to now - it's just that some people care a great deal about whether that question applies retroactively. And you'd still get the arguments about whether something counted as a series at all. And people for whom it was *very, very* important that the two types of series be very, very clearly delineated every time they appeared.
...there's a reason I haven't been speaking up much here lately. I just got worried that some of the series that I put a lot of work in to, that really belong in the main series category, and that I need to stay in the series category because I use LT to manage my cross-edition collections of them, were being overzealously taken out in the excitement over the new field. And oh look, several of them have been. Now I get to decide whether I have the energy to start some silent edit wars in order to keep using my catalog!
ETA: What would really fix it - or at least, what would fix it sufficiently that people like me could stay out of the arguments, but still get the use they need! - would be a catalog-specific series field, that could auto-populate from CK but which one could edit without affecting global data, and which would be applied to things like one's series stats. I suspect Tim would say that would be too confusing for new users, though. Plus we haven't gotten a new non-CK field in *years* despite begging repeatedly.
Perhaps instead of engaging in private edit wars you should discuss the issue here first. That way you might be able to avoid the war aspect.
Definately. I won't take mine out for now, but it should be changed. 57ringmanMar 13, 2011, 3:55pm
I'm not sure of the Thames and Hudson "Art and Imagination" series. I have only one of the books and it does not give me sufficient justification for a move.
It's one of those edge cases. The books are / were written according to a certain format, specifically for that series. But some of them are available in other language versions. 61gilroyMar 18, 2011, 8:04am
I'm finding cases where someone is filling in both the series and publisher series lines for a set of books, though they don't fit the profile for requiring a publisher series.
Should I be removing those publisher series?
61, yes. I remove them if I notice them and if it doesn't put me in a bad mood. I don't understand the ones that put a publisher series line on ONE of a series. Someone is quite confused.
This message has been deleted by its author.
If I find one of my works in a series that should be a publisher's series I change it. Depending on how many works are involved I will sometimes change all of the works. If there are too many for me to do at one time I will leave the rest for someone else to change or go back to it later. 67NoisyApr 5, 2011, 3:58am
I'm currently agonising over Science Masters. Both of the works I have are mentioned as being in the series, and it is definitely a series of commissioned works. What to do? Oh the stresses and strains of this endeavour! 68eromstedEdited: Apr 5, 2011, 10:06am
>66
I'm familiar with many of the works in Radical Thinkers and I spot checked a few more. All were previously published in English. I'll volunteer to move the series.
My only question is what to make of the "sets." Verso has organized the series into sets with changes in cover art, but there doesn't seem to be any thematic meaning to the sets. I think I'd prefer a listing of the form: Verso Radical Thinkers (28|28 - Set 3 (4)). So it would all be one list with the main volume number followed by the set and the set volume number.
>67
it is definitely a series of commissioned works
So what makes you think it doesn't fit the regular series criteria?
I've been wondering: If it's this complicated, how many people do you think will do it correctly? 70BarkingMattEdited: Apr 5, 2011, 1:45pm
;-) Well, the essence isn't very difficult - but then there is the grey area. 72BarkingMattEdited: Apr 5, 2011, 2:30pm
> 71: Ehr, okay. But it isn't really a publishers series either is it? In fact I think it's not a series at all.
Recently I've nuked the "Works of Ludlum" series (or something like that) for that reason.
#72
I think it's rather different from the Ludlum series, which, as far as I remember was just a list of Ludlum's novels. A lot of the Chesterton volumes are collections of essays or journalism which seem to have been put together in this specific arrangement by the publisher. I thought it was a fairly standard example of a publisher's series, where a lot of the volumes are unique but there's some overlap because a few of the volumes are published elsewhere (in this case the Father Brown stories and the Autobiography).
On the other hand, if someone else really feels it should be wiped, I won't interfere!
If you say so. I've only read some (probably most) of the Father Brown stuff. For the rest I'm way out of my depth.
Radical Thinkers is now a publisher series. I also added the new Set 5, not in the prior list.
Oxford Bookworms is exclusive to the publisher, so they're fine as a series.
Oxford Bookworms is the only one to ever publish Robinson Crusoe?
My recollection from prior discussion is that Oxford Bookworms are special abridged editions. So they should be separated from the main work and are fine as a series. Here's the prior thread, you can search it for Oxford Bookworms: http://www.librarything.com/topic/65385If you know some of the volumes to be unabridged, let us know.
O! So if they're abridged, they can be a real series! This is handy information. 81BarkingMattEdited: Apr 16, 2011, 7:40am
In principle yes. In practice various different abridgments/adaptations often get combined. I don't think they should be, but...
But I do think things like "Spark Notes" and "Oxford Bookworms" can be seen as real series, similar to the "for Dummies" series.
It just gets murkier and murkier. Users want classic books to not be polluted by abridgements/adaptations. They put notices up everywhere saying don't combine this and don't even think about combining that. So, other users make series out of those uncombinable books. Then placards go up saying, no, you can't make that a series because it's not a real series. Why? Because it is not exclusive to that publisher. Then we get Publisher Series! A mad dash to move offending series is off and running. But do the abridgements get combined now? No! They are still separate. If they have to be separate, then why can't they be in a series of their own in the first place? Then, we learn that certain Publisher Series are given a pass. They can be a Series because they are "special." 83BarkingMattEdited: Apr 16, 2011, 8:07am
Well, first of all it's just my opinion - I'm just another user. But i've never seen why books written to a specific format (for a certain publisher) can't be a series. The real question, to my mind, has always been: "does the info apply to all copies"?
But do the abridgements get combined now? No! They are still separate.
I do hope so, as much as humanly possible at least. Abbridgments / adaptations simply aren't the same "work". How would you discuss Gulliver's fourth journey with somebody who read a kiddy version of Gulliver's Travels that doesn't even include it?
I appreciate your comments, BarkingMatt, but really there's no sense continuing discussing this. We have no clear guidance about any of this. It is ruled by a cliquish minority and it will stay that way because that's the way Tim likes it. 85NoisyApr 16, 2011, 8:52am
>84
I'm not denying that what you're saying is true, but the problem is that even abridgements are the same 'work' and debating this issue at this point in time is only going to serve as a background discussion to the expressions and editions layer stuff that may or may not be two weeks away. Without the visibility of what relationships are going to be possible at the various levels, trying to reach a solution now that is going to be valid for all time is not worth getting steamed up about.
Thanks, Noisy. As usual, when you talk to me it makes sense. I don't even know about that expressions editions layer stuff because I don't like to waste my time reading the endless petty pony issues that always stall production. (Just gimme da feature someday already.) I will attempt to chill about this and other issues ... grrr ... :)
Abridgments have always been separate works and series of separate works have always been allowed. I really don't know what you're getting all het up about. 88loraxApr 16, 2011, 1:56pm
85>
the problem is that even abridgements are the same 'work'
No, they aren't, or they shouldn't be. Some people may combine them in error, but people combine all sorts of things in error. If you see abridgements combined with their parent work, please separate them, or post them to Combiners and someone else will. But they are most definitely not the same work and should not be treated as such.
Exactly, we have work-to-work relations for abridgments and such. 90NoisyApr 17, 2011, 6:40am
>88, 89
Yes, but ...
they are still conceptually the same work, and so they are in fact just expressions of one idea, rather than brand new ideas in themselves. Come the revolution, relationships will become expression-to-expression relationships within a single work.
Yeah, I think lorax and BarkingMatt are using the LT jargon definition of work, while Noisy is referring more to the general use definition. If you were counting the works of Charles Dickens you wouldn't normally count abridgments separately. But the LT definition makes sense for LT, mostly.
Part of the problem is that there are abridgments and then there are abridgments. I have a "vocabulary-limited, grammar-simplified, style-modified edition of the most interesting episodes" of Don Quijote in Spanish (to quote the preface). The whole book is 244 pages. About half of that is exercises and a vocabulary list. This is certainly not Cervantes' Quijote, and its questionable if it is even an expression of that work. At the other extreme is, say, Denny's translation of Le Misérables. This is not an abridgment as such, but Denny does note in his introduction that he shortened some passages here and there as part of his license as a translator. And there are examples on the entire continuum in between. Are all abridgments really more textually socially distinct than, say, the different editions of textbooks that we usually combine? Or heavily illustrated editions where the illustrations are the main point of having the book, even if the text is identical to other editions?
I'm not trying to re-argue the custom of separating abridgments. I think it makes sense on balance. I am simply noting that our combination practices are not innately natural. To someone from the outside it might seem very strange to distinguish a series of abridgments of classic childrens' stories (not combined, regular series) from a series of classic childrens' stories with new introductions and illustrations (combined, publishers series). 92fdholtApr 17, 2011, 9:03am
#91 Actually I've come to the conclusion that it depends! I have a few abridgements that are combined with the regular, a few that are on their own and a few that are combined with other abridgements that are really different in length and content. I am thinking that the work and associated works might just take care of this better than combining/uncombining. (And I'm not fixing any of my copies yet until we know the direction LT is going to go.)
> 91: Yeah, I think lorax and BarkingMatt are using the LT jargon definition of work, while Noisy is referring more to the general use definition.
Can only speak for myself, of course, but yes: for now I'm sticking to "work" as used on LT.
I agree with Noisy in #90 that if/when we get expressions we probably have to rethink this - and the dead language rule too, by the way. 94BarkingMattEdited: Apr 18, 2011, 7:58am
On the other hand: Tolkien's LOTR and Peter Jackson's "moviefication" are in fact just expressions of one idea, as Noisy put it. But I wouldn't like to see them combined -ever- just to make that level of "expression" possible. 95gilroyApr 18, 2011, 8:49am
I think that movies shouldn't be combined with books anyway. Old fashioned medium separation thing in my mind. They may be the same work, but they aren't because they are different in how its told. 96loraxApr 18, 2011, 9:46am
93>
Yes, "work" is an LT term of art, and whenever I use it on LT that's how I use it. I agree that a relationship of some sort exists between abridgments and the real thing that is not captured by existing LT structures, and that expressions should be able to encompass, but the exact implementation details will determine whether that means combining them into the same work or creating a work-to-work relationship. But they aren't the same work, even if they're versions of the same thing. 97loraxApr 18, 2011, 9:47am
If you were counting the works of Charles Dickens you wouldn't normally count abridgments separately.
No, because they aren't by Charles Dickens. They're by someone else, based on a work by Charles Dickens, even if every word is from the Dickens. 98NoisyApr 18, 2011, 2:19pm
>97 What the dickens are you talking about? They are derived works (or some other word - I don't really care what), and wouldn't exist without the original. The only sense they are by someone else is that someone has got the scissors and paste out and had a hack rather than come up with an original idea. (You do realise that I am just debating for the sake of it, don't you?) 99fdholtApr 18, 2011, 2:26pm
#98 I have to agree that they could not exist without the original and they are derived. And there is a place for abridged works as there are for arranged scores for piano from an orchestral arrangement. There is originality here - it takes work to reformulate a major work into a shortened version for children or an abridged work so it makes sense or a piano piece so it sounds like good music.
(And, Noisy, I'm answering you cause I couldn't resist.)
According to jjwilson in Message 87, "Abridgments have always been separate works and series of separate works have always been allowed." So, if each Dickens work and also the works of many other famous authors were to be abridged for children and published by a new publisher, those books could be put into a series of their own.
Like uh.... give me some examples ... 101gilroyApr 18, 2011, 2:59pm
#100 Great Illustrated Classics. They take and abridge the original story then add lots of pictures.
# 98 Though under the concept that Noisy seems to be arguing, just from a debate to follow the logic tree standpoint, any book that was inspired by Dickens should also be combined with the Dickens, since they were also "derived" from the initial work, if you wanted to take it that far. 103loraxApr 18, 2011, 4:28pm
98> Well, they sure has heck aren't by Charles Dickens! He never wrote those words in that order, and if you're going to allow anything that can be created from a subset of the words in a particular Dickens work (and many if not most abridgements are also simplifications, rather than strict subsets, so that's even being rather generous), I can make a whole lot out of Great Expectations that would have nothing to do with the original plot, given scissors, paste, and time. (You do realise that I am just debating for the sake of it, don't you?)Of course, and I hope you realize I'm doing the same. Abridgments and simplifications are in some funny intermediate state. The only part of this I feel at all strongly about is that they should never be combined with the work they're derived from.
103> Well, they sure has heck aren't by Charles Dickens! He never wrote those words in that order
Oooo, just wait 'til Noisy thinks to bring up translations. *evil grin* 105NoisyApr 18, 2011, 6:16pm
>104 I'll see your translations and raise you Platonic ideals and Theory of Forms. (Time for bed. "Boing" said Zebedee.) 106gilroyApr 19, 2011, 10:16am
#102 > Not rightly sure. It lists me as a helper on the publisher's series, but I don't recall doing anything with them. *shrug*
106 - If you ever edit something in a CK field, it also attributes all of the other previous edits to you again. So if you add a publisher series entry and there are already 5 publisher series entries, it attributes 6 edits to you, not just one. That's how we sometimes end up on awards, series, or places pages when we haven't actually edited that particular award, series, place.
>102
Typhoon was my entry. I was separating various editions of Typhoon and other stuff with differing contents and not focused on the series. I've now moved it to regular series. I moved Oliver Twist too, since it seems fairly straight forward. The Great Illustrated Classics Red Badge of Courage is currently combined with the main work. If it is also an adaption, it need to be separated first.
102, done.
What are the other series of this type that are allowed to have their own series?
>110
Are these game guides released by more than one publisher? Why not leave it as a regular series?
Yeah, the Prima guides aren't published by anyone else. 113gilroyApr 20, 2011, 9:22am
I started work on that many moons ago, then lost my list of what guides belong.
They have a secondary series that attachs with that one, but I can't remember the name. 115andylApr 20, 2011, 12:15pm
#114
One of the related series needs to be deleted completely.
The other also needs to be moved to Publisher Series.
So the Prima's are staying? I've been getting crap for my TSR series and went ahead and moved it over to Publishers Series because of it.
116> Who's been giving you grief?
#117: TSR was the only one who published the original D&D books.
Sure. That's why there's a D&D series. But TSR is a publisher, and in no way shape or form does every book that TSR published, from D&D books to the Endless Quest books to the Amazing Engine books to game world fiction to random genre fiction, make one series, be it publisher or not.
120> Good call on that one. Series aren't supposed to be publisher lists.
#122: I don't know anything about Leisure Arts, but it does seem to be at least in one subject and with a consistent book format. TSR is all over the place; no consistencies of theme, subject matter, or format.
And yes, actually numbering a set of publications does show intent to make a series. It's not the end-all of everything, but it is a point for it being a series.
So I don't really have an opinion about the Leisure Arts, but do see TSR as a distinctly different case. 124andylApr 21, 2011, 3:31am
#117
#120
Actually TSR wasn't the only one who published D&D and AD&D.
Games Workshop was the publisher in the UK before TSR set up TSR UK.
125gilroyApr 21, 2011, 8:17am
#117, 120
So I guess the White Wolf series needs to go away as well, huh?
> 125: If sharing a publisher is all they have in common: yes. 127fdholtApr 21, 2011, 8:50am
#123
This is the complete output of the publisher Leisure Arts and the subject matter goes from cross stitch to bowmaking and other crafts to quilting to knitting to whatever else. Not the same subject at all.
Just a small request. Since the series pages remain after a series is emptied out, can we please edit the series description to point folks to the newer Publishers Series. I just did such a thing on this empty series that I just came across: http://www.librarything.com/series/Harlequin+Presents+Extrathanks, -drmike edit: I finished TSR awhile ago. I'm not moving it again and I have better things to do with my time. Let's keep it as a publishers series. I do note that someone came back through and added some in as a series. I'll move those over.
Yes, something like that would be good.
131 Agreed that it belongs on the Dutch site, but isn't it possible that both the English "Library of Culinary Arts" and the Dutch Kleine Bibliotheek van culinaire kunsten" are still Series rather than Publisher Series? All these books seem to be by the same author, and they look like they're published in much the same format in Dutch as in English. In other words, this looks more like simply a Dutch version of an English series, analogous to a Dutch version of Lord of the Rings.
Simply translating the books wouldn't be enough to knock them out of being a series, if the translations were published as a translated version of the series.
It has three names in English, having been published by DK in England and Bantam in the US.
The Bantam Library of Culinary Arts
The National Trust Little Library
Library of Culinary Arts
Any of these as well as the Dutch name and the German name... are acceptable as publishers series, but none of them applies to all copies, even in English.
But aren't these 2 English versions just republications of the same series? 136eromstedEdited: Jul 4, 2011, 9:57am
>135 Yes. It's series of translations, some of which were also previously published in English. Moved and filled in from the Interlink series page. 137jasbroJul 12, 2011, 1:02pm
I see many familiar names in this thread (Hi, y'all!), but I'm completely new to the LibraryThing Series Group (Y'all been hiding from me?). Please accept my apologies for what may be a steep learning curve. I still hope to read the 136 posts above, but -- in the meantime -- can somebody point me to an applicable protocol or summary on dealing with the following three Series, which should probably be Publishers Series instead? -- Fathers of the Church, http://www.librarything.com/series/Fathers+of+the+Church-- Popular Patristics, http://www.librarything.com/series/Popular+Patristics-- Works of Martin Luther, http://www.librarything.com/series/Works+of+Martin+LutherAlso, having completed a transmigration of "Ancient Christian Writers" from Series to Publishers Series, I attempted to update the Publisher Series - Series description Wiki ( http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Publisher_Series_-_Series_description... ); but I'd welcome someone's looking over my shoulder to tell me what I should do more, better or different. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and suggestions.
Rororo is an imprint (or similar) of the German publisher Rowohlt Verlag. So technically I wouldn't really even consider it a publisher series, much less a regular series, but it certainly wouldn't be the only imprint to be listed this way.
There are many imprints listed in the Publishers Series field these days. I don't particularly like them, but they seem to be acceptable there -- but definitely not in the Series field.
>143
moved. There actually seemed to be two series (one from the publisher Aufbau Verlag, the other from DTV/Artemis)
There's probably some combining that can be done of the works, but many Greek/Roman authors are a bit of a mess & I wasn't in the mood to try and sort things out tonight.
145> It's complicated because the fields aren't named well, although no one could think of better names. Basically the Publishers Series field is for series that don't qualify for the Series field. And a series doesn't qualify for the Series field if any of the editions of works in that series have been published outside the series.
So if any of the works in The American Empire Project have been published outside of that series then it doesn't belong in the Series field.
148 - Aren't these all abridged and therefore specific to the series?
151, the second series you listed is a Series. The huge Ladybird Books is also, but I've seen people complain about it. (No one seems to want to dismantle it, though.) Each of the series within the huge Ladybird Books series is a Series. I'm sure they have become polluted with non-Ladybird books since I made them, but that's the case with anything. 153bookelEdited: Jan 7, 2012, 11:13pm
Okay, no worries. It's not always easy to tell sometimes! I would have thought Ladybird Books to be a publisher series.
I've only looked at the first few (A Preschool Puppet Book and A Puppet Storybook) but what makes you think those series should be publisher series? Have any of those works been published outside these series? OK, Henny Penny, Rumplestiltskin and the like have been retold many times but usually in different ways and with different illustrations (which probably makes a difference with children's picture books) so they usually aren't combined. 155bookelJan 8, 2012, 1:21am
Publisher series by Grosset & Dunlap as already stated. In most cases, I believe, it appears to be the same publisher and illustrator (photographs of puppets). Series is (usually) stated on the front cover.
I think your mistaking some general definition of publishers series with the LT definition of Publishers Series.
I'm pretty sure the Laser Books series should actually be a publisher series. But as I don't know many of the titles can anyone else confirm this before I start shifting htem over?
I think the titles in the Laser Books series were only published by them for the US market. There are multiple authors and is akin to what collectors call a "publishers' library". As such, I would be comfortable seeing this as a publisher series. Are there reasons why it should not be?
James 171jasbroEdited: Jul 13, 2012, 11:00am
> 98-105: I love LT, and the fact that I can play in y'all's sandbox!
Well, according to WorldCat Klutz is a publishing house (in Palo Alto, CA). Other than that, not I see no connection between the works.
Doesn't look like a real series. I don't even see the connectivity for a publishers series.
Can we agree to call the user who entered this as a series a Klutz. Probably not, wouldn't be kind.
>175
It's pretty much just a publisher's catalog. Klutz makes books, games, and toys and books that come with toys/games. But other than being kids activity/play focused, there's no series here.
Os.
#178: Why? It's a series of works that are made for and owned by Penguin. They're all abridgments and adaptations, as far as I can tell.
Penguin owns Alice in Wonderland? Anne of Green Gables? Black Beauty? Call of the Wild? ET? The Secret Garden?
>180
In none of the examples you cite is the original work part of the Penguin Readers Series. The editions in the series have been separated from their original works presumably because they are abridgements or adaptions. Do you have reason to believe this was done incorrectly? Are any unabridged, original works included in the series? 185gilroySep 25, 2012, 2:20pm
Its labeled as a podcast. Were each of the audio done within Starship Sofa or did the audio get done multiple places? If they are all audio from the one place, the audio pieces could be a series. IF the audio and the text got combined, then I can see the pub series.
The audio and text versions of each work should be combined if they can, and many are. Just looking at the series page, many of the works have magazine covers -- the works listed are clearly not exclusively podcasts. I love the idea of having a series for the podcast, and may do the same for Escape Pod and Podcastle (my two favorites). But they are publisher series, not series.
187 - Oh yes: that user has put a lot of stuff in series that 1) often doesn't belong there, and/or 2) is incorrectly formatted, where the number isn't in parentheses. Most of his or her entries need to be cleaned up. http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php?user=878029&uid=50...Perhaps someone who speaks Italian could try to explain to him/her how series and publisher series are distinct, and how CK entries in these fields must be formatted in order to work.
It's a "series" of booklets specially produced for a yearly event (promoting children's books). I agree it's unlikely that all of them only saw that one edition though. So yeah, making it a publisher series would be better.
189-190: We've had this discussion about the other Boekenweek-related books: http://www.librarything.com/topic/95059#2724455As I recall, there was some disagreement about which of the series/publisher series criteria should have the most weight. If (all) the books were actually written originally for this series, then some would argue that makes it a proper series. But there's probably no harm putting it in publisher series.
This one might well count as a series, since the books appear to have been originally commissioned as part of a series (in English, the "Legendary Past Series),and, far as I can tell, none exist outside that series. This is one of those toss-up cases that I'd probably leave in series, but others might put in publisher series. At any rate, this is the Greek language version of it, so it needs to be put in either the Greek-language series field or Greek-language publisher series field: http://www.librarything.com/series/%CE%9C%CF%8D%CE%B8%CE%BF%CE%B9+%CE%BA%CE%B1%C... 195gilroyNov 14, 2012, 10:41am
I had recommended moving non-English series to the correct language at one time and was told not to. Has this policy changed?
I'm not so sure about publisher's series, but regular series that have NOT been (and probably will not be) translated into English are often in the English site for the convenience of those of us who read more than one language. If they are available in English the series should only be entered in English on the English site.
was told not to. By whom?
196 - agreed. I'd also put the publisher series in the non-English site. I'd especially do so when the language in question uses a non-Latin alphabet. 202rsterlingEdited: Nov 26, 2012, 6:32pm
If it's the same series just in an equivalent translation (but where all the books in one language are restricted to the version of the series within that language), I wouldn't consider it non-exclusive in the same way. I wouldn't consider it necessary to move it to publisher series. Similar to Calvin and Hobbes vs. Steen & Stoffer. The French version of Scholastic Voyages of Discovery seems to be "Les Racines du Savoir": http://www.amazon.fr/Le-Ciel-par-dessus-nos-t%C3%AAtes/dp/207056830XThe books look to be exactly the same, even in design. So I'd consider this to be just different language versions of the same series.
I'm not at all sure about that. "the set is noted for presenting the original, unedited versions of Howard's Conan tales. This volume includes thirteen short stories as well as miscellanea for Howard fans and enthusiasts (e.g., drafts, notes, maps, etc.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coming_of_Conan_the_CimmerianI'd like to ask a Conan scholar first. This might very well be a unique set with different text editions in a unique order etc.
In that case the special editions would have to be separated out.
But won't touch it for now.
>204
The wiki article you link says of volume 1, "It was originally published in 2003, first in the United Kingdom by Wandering Star under the title Conan of Cimmeria: Volume One (1932–1933), and shortly thereafter in the United States by Del Rey under the present title. The Science Fiction Book Club subsequently reprinted the complete set in hardcover;"
If all of the publishers have the same number of volumes with the same contents in the same order then I'd say it is a series. If not, then it's a publisher series. If it is a series, I would take Del Rey out of the series name as it is not unique to that publisher.
I do not agree that they are a publisher series.
I did a search and found a few stragglers and also added a recent publication, but I don't see what you think needs to be tidied up.
If they are all abridged (and thus all considered different works from the original) AND if these abridged versions are all exclusive to this series, then they are fine as a "series" on LT. Only if some were not exclusive would it need to be moved to publisher series status.
Not only are they abridged (hence the use of the words digest and condensed) they are also volumes that contain two or more works each. Book A condensed + Book B condensed = impossible to find elsewhere.
> 184..186
StarShipSofa Podcast is now a publisher series.
>196 I'm not so sure about publisher's series, but regular series that have NOT been (and probably will not be) translated into English are often in the English site for the convenience of those of us who read more than one language. If they are available in English the series should only be entered in English on the English site.
Translated series often don't have all the original works translated, is the 'Related' series section good enough reference to the original language series?
I moved the series Lijsters to the Publisher series of individual Lijsters (Kleuterlijsters, Mijn Eerste Lijsters, Jonge Lijsters, Junior Lijsters, Vroege Lijsters, Grote Lijsters, Gouden Lijsters) They're not all showing up in search (yet?), even though it states there are 12 publisher series, it only shows 4. Is this a cache/index issue?
215> For example: http://www.librarything.com/series/Der%252BDativ%252Bist%252Bdem%252BGenitiv%252... This is a series about German language, and the ways people make mistakes in it for native speakers. It is not translatable, as each language has its own ways of making life difficult. Any student whose German is good enough that these articles would be useful can read it in German, so even for teaching it would never be translated into English. http://www.librarything.com/series/Geschichte%252BWiensThis is a history of Vienna, much more in detail than is likely to ever be translated into English. Both of the members with this series are English mother tongue living in Vienna. http://www.librarything.com/series/Kreuzstichmuster%2520Aus%2520Schloss%2520Trau...Cross stitch patterns from the collection of a small museum. The owners of this one are Italian?, French language, US living in Austria, US, English language, I hope the first one is also available from the German site, but the others would be rather useless if they were only there.
The Language site shows the English series if there is no Language series.
The English site shows nothing if there is no English series, even when there is a Language series.
This is a bit of a shame, if there is an English translated series, which doesn't have all the original Language works.
But this goes off topic.
It was marked as 'Very Short Introductions' in Japanese CK too. I removed that.
Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische BildungAs this is in German I don't really know anything about it but I was made suspicious by the inclusion of Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 by Christopher Clark, a book I know was originally published in English. Also note all of the German related series in the box on the right.
That translates as : Publications series of the national centre for political education. It also includes Montefiore's Jerusalem: The Biography also originally English. I've moved that book.
I almost hate to get into this.
But is there anything unique about the "Laurel Poetry Series" editions that makes it a series rather than a publisher series? I have been categorizing them under publisher series under the do-no-harm theory that it is a less assertive categorization. But there are so many different editions of major poets, all with the same or similar titles ...
I guess this is ultimately this is a question about combining. What is the community consensus about combining poetry editions?
> 225: If Emily Dickinson The Laurel Poetry Series is any indication, this is a Publisher Series -- more akin to "Everyman's Library" or "Penguin Classics" than, say, "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings." Separation of Series editions from other editions may be helpful if there's a question of content indentity, but I see no relation of Emily Dickinson to most of the other Authors who come up on a Site Search: http://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=Laurel+Poetry+Series&searchtyp...I say make it a Publisher Series. Thanks!
#226: If Emily Dickinson The Laurel Poetry Series is any indication, this is a Publisher Series
Why? Anthologies can certainly be series.
> 226 & 227 -- This is the thing: It seems to me that single-author collections of poetry often have many different editions with very similar titles -- e.g., "Emily Dickinson" or "The Poems of Emily Dickinson" or "Emily Dickinson's Poetry". But obviously might have very, very different content.
For instance, I sorted out the "Emily Dickinson" titled items that were part of the "Young People's Guide to..." series, on the assumption that a Young People's series would be substantively different than series aimed at adults.
But how can a combiner/series person know, with respect to poetry series, without having the items in front of us? Should we just be staying away from it unless we're experts? Because then I don't see the work getting done at all.
But how can a combiner/series person know, with respect to poetry series, without having the items in front of us?Sometimes you can find contents info on Worldcat, Google Books, Amazon "view inside," or Internet Archive. Here are some records on Worldcat, for instance. https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=laurel+poetry+series&dblist=638&se=%24d&sd=desc&fq=ap%3A%22dickinson%2C+emily%22&qt=facet_ap%3AI looked at a couple of the results, and didn't see a list of contents, but they did say the book contains "selections." Unless they're exactly the same selections as in some other "selected works of Emily Dickinson," I'd assume this is a distinct work. I try to find contents information whenever I can. When I can't, and it's plausible the contents are unique, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the work separate.
I don't know if it's ordered the way you like. You can change the numbers (or name) in the CK portion of the work page. Some of the numbers seem to be duplicates, and some are missing.
>232
that's perfect thanks
I created this series yesterday: http://www.librarything.com/series/BRF+People%27s+Bible+CommentaryI suspect it ought to be moved to publisher's series. There are a number of problems here. 1) there is at least one other series called the People' Bible Commentary. That series has been created and ought to be looked at and fixed by someone who knows at least part of it. 2) Many of the works in both series are combined with similar works by the same author. Once an author is known to be an expert on a certain book of the Bible, that author is asked to contribute to various series. Some of the time an existing book is used or adapted to fit the new series, often a totally new book is written to fit the different aims of the series. This leaves several works by one author all called 'Mark', or 'Genesis'. Any differentiation is by ISBN or by subtitle. Add in the tendency of some members to find a similar book and change the subtitle but not the ISBN, and you have a big mess. 3) I suspect that several of the Doubleday Bible commentary really are reissues of this series, but not all of them. I've tried to make the works in the series linked above as clean as I can get them, leaving in the Doubleday volumes. I worked on this for a long time yesterday, and will go back to it in a few days. But not today.
World Perspectives is one of those series where a bunch of the books have stuff like "(Routledge Classics)" or "(Harper Colophon books)" after the title. I don't know the history, but it's pretty clearly a publisher series.
> 235: Agree completely.
> 236: Not so sure. Do some of these Works also appear elsewhere, independently or maybe under other imprints? At first blush, the cover images displayed have an uncanny similarity. If these are uniform editions from the same publisher, and none appears outside the (lower-case) series, I'd say Series is the best descriptor among our CK fields. Other thoughts?
Looks like a fun series. Too bad i've got no time or money to read or even get them :( @ LunaSlashSea Contrary to what the name suggests the Publisher Series is not intended to house series that only includes works that are published by that Publisher. Such a series of works would on LT be a regular Series. Like the example given of the Dummies series. All by the same publisher, none by any other publisher, therefore a Series. at least that's my understanding of the matter
>237,238 I have re-read the thread and agree with you; the books should stay in the series. Thanks. 242jasbroEdited: Feb 23, 8:29am
Seeing no objections, THIS THREAD IS CLOSED. Please continue to review and revise "Series to Publisher Series" requests listed above, but post further discussion and requests to our new thread at http://www.librarything.com/topic/150442# -- Thank you! |  120 members 3,621 messages  AboutThis topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic. Touchstones |
This topic was continued by