Why I voted "Undecided"? (Tag separation/combination)
Join LibraryThing to post.
I proposed "822 - British Drama" with "British Drama". 822 is the Dewey number for "British Drama" (http://dewey.info/class/822/about.en). Currently 3 yes and 4 undecided.
Is it that books could be tagged "British Drama" because they are British plays, about British Drama or (e.g.) they are about breeding frogs but are kept in the "British Drama" box, where if a book is tagged with the Dewey number, it means something very specific?
Can only speak for myself. I vote undecided on such things because I don't know what the 822 stands for. You say Dewey, fine - probably, even very likely. But couldn't it possibly also mean something else? So many codes around internationally. Could, though unlikely in this case, also mean a year.
Won't actively vote against these things. But I'm undecided, so I vote accordingly.
Actually, 822 is the Dewey number for "English Drama" (I didn't read my own link!).
There's one person using this tag, who also uses a number of similarly-constructed tags where the numbers also correspond to the Dewey classifications. So I think in this case it's 99% certain that that is, in fact, what the number is intended to refer to.
Yes. I think its likely that people will use the Dewey classification as a tag, even though there is a field for it.
In general, would we combine a Dewy classification tag with the description alone e.g. "181 - Eastern Philosophy" with "Eastern Philosophy"?
I'm favouring "No". It is like combining "This is a book mainly about/of Eastern Philosophy" with "This is a book that has something to do with Eastern Philosophy".
Good lord. This should be about creating good connections, not building some ivory tower of ultimate meaning.
Haven't actually voted yet, but I wonder why there's a separation proposal for "Karel V" and "karel v"?
Ah, sorry, forgot to post that one in the please vote against my suggestion thread.
I felt torn about voting "Undecided" for God - Biblical teaching and God - Biblical Teachings. I do, in fact, support their combination, but I've found it tough for future combinations to gain support when the proposed singular doesn't match the winningest plural or vice versa. For example, the combination of neighbourhood into neighborhoods is currently 7+ to 4-, even though "neighborhoods" contains "neighbordhood" and "Neighborhood" and "Neighboorhood." (see also my proposals for neighbour into "neighbors" and "Supersticiones into "superstition").
If I were craftier, I would temporarily fill up my library with the necessary singular or plural tag to change the winningest tag and thus get more support, haha, but that doesn't seem right. (I should probably just propose some separations). I imagine for the "God - Biblical teaching(s)" case, it won't matter too much, since it's rather specific and probably won't have too many future combo proposals, and again, I do support its combination, but I think it's something to think about when making both proposals and voting decisions.
I voted "Undecided" on combining viaggio into travel. I don't speak Italian, but if viaggio is like its Spanish cognate, viaje, in addition to the more conceptual "travel", it could also refer to a more concrete "trip", "journey", "voyage". The translation really depends on the context. But I didn't want to vote it down either, because in terms of classificatory tagging, it's probably more likely people are using it in the sense of "travel".
I do not know exactly how to use "travel" in English.
I can say that in Italian has many meanings, I hope to be able to explain:
- Simple movement from one place to another, by train, by plane, by car, also in the subway, but if it has a certain length, not too short.
- Short move, but with difficulty, for example, carrying in hands something heavy. If I bring all my books from one room to another, I will have to do a lot of "viaggi".
- Figuratively: "viaggio" with the imagination, the mind, the feelings
- With drugs
- Time travel
- It also can be used in relation with sound, light.
In Italian, "viaggio" does NOT make sense "to attend", "to join", "associated with".
10> I think you're being too picky. In English, travel can also mean trip, journey, or voyage, and even if there were some minor difference in usage between the languages I don't think that should be a barrier to combining.
11 > Thank you for the detailed explanation.
12 > I guess my follow-up question would be whether it would then be appropriate to combine "travel", "trip", "journey", and "voyage", and I'm guessing that those would end up getting voted down. I think what I fear happening is that "viaggio" will get combined with "travel", "viaje" with "journey", "vojaĝo" with "trip", "viatge" with "voyage", etc., and never shall they meet. I've seen that happen with other tags (e.g. "economia" redirects to "economics" and "economía" goes to "economy", and while those are both probably appropriate translations, "economia" and "economía" should probably have been together in the first place). This is already happening with some plurals: "viagens" is combined with "voyages" and "viaggi" is combined with "travel". Ok, I think I just convinced myself to vote "No" for now instead of "Undecided", haha.
Actually, I have a hard time figuring out how a travel book and a trip book would differ and may well vote to combine them. The same goes for journey, but voyage has a connotation of ocean travel.
Am I correct that the Italian word ebraico can mean either Hebrew or Jewish?
The words Hebrew and Jewish don't always have a clear distinction in English, either. The modern usage is fairly distinct, but not always.
I hadn't known that about English, prosfilaes, though I wouldn't use that as a reason to combine Hebrew and Jewish, of course. I am concerned with whether the Italian distinction is less used or nonexistent.
I did some more digging, and the last part of the last paragraph of this section of an Italian Wikipedia article seems to indicate that the terms ebrei and giudei or ebraismo and giudaismo became inexact synonyms, while also noting that other languages make a clearer lexical distinction between the language (Hebrew) and the people/religion (Jewish). This seems to be confirmed by the English Wikipedia article on Hebrews which mentions its use in Italian specifically, amongst other languages.
Anyway, it's probably clear by now that I'm voting no on ebraico.
Does it matter that the only two members using the tag are using it exclusively to mean the Hebrew language?
I had noticed that too. I interpret that to mean "there aren't yet many Italian taggers." There will eventually be more. And I fear that future ones will use 'ebraico' to mean 'Jewish'. (Part of my fear, yes, may stem from how unnecessarily difficult I believe tag separation is to achieve currently.)
Not sure if "100" should really be combined with anything. Seems to me it could just as easily be a Dewey sign as the number. It is however, a fairly eclectic tag.
It's definitely different from ".100", at least it was when I took math!
I think it most likely that "psychological suspense defective fiction" is a typo and that it should be combined, but I'm posting it here because either way, it's amusing.
"Collectorator has proposed combining the tag childhood of famous americans and cofa."
I made this proposal a long time ago, but only just now figured out how to find my own proposals. (It's a clunky way, so I still want the RSI I made.)
Anyway, I should have posted here at the time to say that cofa is my tag, and I use it exclusively for Childhood of Famous Americans.
The proposal died. The threshold has been met. Is it dead forever, or do I re-propose it, or just fuggedaboudit? It's not earth-shattering, but I thought it would be helpful to clean it up.
Possibly. But I'm still interested to know how you managed to track your own proposals ;-)
On the Home page, the module Tag Combinations. (It's under Helpers if you don't have it on your dashboard.)
Click Your Total and then use ctrl-f to find 'BarkingMatt has proposed'
Now I have another question for you, BarkingMatt.
"BarkingMatt has proposed separating the tag 2451816 Brazilian art and 486536 brazilian art."
How are we supposed to see the difference between these two? Both link to the same place.
I did? Please look at http://www.librarything.com/tag/Brazilian+art for that one. But, seriously, sometimes proposals go wrong. I even voted against that one myself. Maybe I should have posted in the "please vote against my bonehead suggestion", only I wasn't aware I was the one who apparently suggested this combination. Was I drunk (okay, possible), or did something on LT go wrong (also possible)?
There are a couple of combinations suggested for "Nachslagewerk" with "reference" and variations, and it has already been combined with other similar tags. Not sure if this correct. The Swedish word, and my dictionary implies that it is an exact translation, at least implies a sort of dictionary or lexicon: something you go to look things up in, where they are arranged alphabetically, while it seems that "Reference works" could be somewhat more coherent, like handbooks, or have some other ordering. Perhaps someone more proficient in German can confirm this?
I'm not sure where the difference lies between 'reference' and 'reference book', but let's NOT combine the German with a misspelled 'refrence'.
Ok, I see what's going on: it has nothing to do with the German. That is the winning label for the 'reference book' tag. So if misspellings are combined, it would make sense to combine the misspelled tag there. The real question is whether 'reference' and 'reference book' should be combined.
For what it's worth 'Nachschlagen' is to look something up - in a Nachschlagewerk.
The Wikipedia pages in English and German seem to indicate that these are books you only look things up in, and don't read through from cover to cover. But I've been reading encyclopedias as long as I can remember, so I'm not a good person to judge these things.
31, no you voted to separate them. What I can't figure out is how we are supposed to be able to distinguish these separations. 2451816 vs. 486536? I can't see where we can see what the two are?
Please excuse all my questioning. I'm not questioning what you do, but how the system works.
No problem. Yes, I do see I suggested that separation - must have been some slip of the mouse. (I really have voted against the proposal myself though).
I don't think we even actually can separate tags that only have capitalization differences. I'm not 100% sure though.
Just posting this to get people to think about it properly, and not just assume this is a simple case of singular/plural:
Isle of Man Railway is the name of one of the three railways on the Isle of Man (the other two being the Manx Electric Railway and the Snaefell Mountain Railway), and it seems every use of the tag at present is referring to this.
This is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Isle of Man Railway is one of the Isle of Man Railways, and the tag "Isle of Man Railway" could in theory be used as a generic term to describe any railway on the Isle of Man. To make matters worse, "Isle of Man Railways" is currently only used on one book, which is also about the Isle of Man Railway.
It's an awkward situation where the tags have different meanings but where anything that is used for one will automatically be viable for the other. As such I have voted undecided.
It is pretty clear that the one book tagged Isle of Man Railways refers to the single version of the tag, as the book is about steam locomotives and the two other IOM railway are electrically operated. That being said, there is only one book so tagged, so the tag itself is a rare one, and not a mispelling. I frequently do not propose single use tags for combinations, as I don't think they add a whole lot of value to book information, unless all versions of the tag are really infrequent. But I did vote for the combo, as the difference between plural and singular seems too subtle to worry about.
It is also interesting that the Isle of Man Railway and the Manx Electric Railway are linked by a fourth "railway", namely The Douglas Horse Tramway, which runs on rails just like the other 3 mentioned.
The tag "Belletristik" (https://www.librarything.com/tag/Belletristik) includes Belles-lettres in it at present, which would want combining with "Belles Lettres" (https://www.librarything.com/tag/Belles+Lettres). I'm not familiar with either term, so looked both up.
From the wikipedia pages, it doesn't look like they are the same thing - indeed the pages seem to be specifically stating that they aren't.
On the other hand, as stated I'm not familiar with either term so it could just be my misinterpretation (or a misleading wikipedia article), and I don't want to vote no if that's the case, and I want to say something as if they don't want to be together there will need to be separations made from the existing tag.
Is anyone able to elucidate this?
The wikipedia pages in question: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belletristik and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belles-lettres
Reread can be telling oneself to reread something, or past tense saying that the thing has been reread.
Can rileggere be used for both of these things? I don't know any Italian so I don't know myself.
Finnish speakers: äitiys is currently up for combination with maternity. The latter is mostly on books about pregnancy, giving birth, etc. (not much about the later years of raising kids, etc.). I know in Spanish, maternidad could mean both maternity and motherhood. I wonder if äitiys might be better suited for combination with motherhood (or not quite either)?
Some of the books in Wissenschaften
https://www.librarything.com/work/11854229 - The Medieval history of the Arabs
https://www.librarything.com/work/7959119/editions-The History of Reading
http://www.librarything.com/tag/The+Lord+of+the+Rings+Vol.+1 would combine The Fellowship of the Ring with http://www.librarything.com/tag/Lord+of+the+Rings+%231 The Hobbit
http://www.librarything.com/tag/The+Lord+of+the+Rings+2 combines usage on the book with http://www.librarything.com/tag/Lord+of+the+Rings+Trilogy+%23+2 usage on the movie. Actually, the former contains other tags that specifically mention "book", so I'll probably change my vote to no to be consistent with my other no-votes on the "LOTR #N" with "LOTR book N" combos.
I think histoire in French is pretty much history. English sometimes uses story to mean history, as in Van Loon's Story of Mankind. This book has been translated into French and, Spanish and German. See this list of editions: https://www.librarything.com/work/58747/editions . I think the English word history is sometimes not used for popularizations of history, but work ok in other languages. I don't that is enough to not want to combine. But on the other hand, histoire and l'histoire are not really commonly used. By the way, 'short story' in French is frequently translated as nouvelle, but occasionally as histoire courte.
What's Russian for electronica? As электроника would be a direct transliteration of the English.
Why is paranormal-vamp proposed for combination with paranormal-vampires and not with Vampire Paranormal (which already includes paranormal-vampire)?
I'd be happy for all three tags to be combined, as I don't mind combining singulars and plurals where there isn't a visible difference in usage. But most voters seem to disagree with me about that, and if "vamp" can only be combined with "vampires" or "vampire" I don't know why it should be the former.
>51 Edward: I would call that a full 'no'. Vamp has other meanings besides being short for vampire.
>51 Edward: well paranormal-vampire is singular. Shouldn't be with paranormal-vampires anyway.
>50 kuuderes_shadow: Some words are really that close - in this case because it comes from Greek into both languages. электроника is the correct word in Russian for Electronics (the science) :). Looking at this tag, all of those books are about the science.
Electronika/Elektronica/Электроника is also a Soviet brand name for calculators and similar things (the Latin names are transliteration of the Russian one and not the other way around). None of the tagged books are for it though so I would not think of it...
In English, read in 2015 could mean "[this was] read in 2015" or "[to] read in 2015". Wiktionary defines luettu as the Finnish past passive participle of a verb meaning "to read", which suggests that luettu 2015 could only have the past meaning.
I'm voting Undecided as I can't read Finnish, and it's possible that the English tag is rarely used with the future meaning anyway.
Regarding the proposal to combine metaphysis and metaphysics: the "metaphysis" tag is used only for Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, so I suspect it is a typo for "metaphysics" in this case. However, the OED defines "metaphysis" as (a) part of a bone, or (b) an obsolete word for transformation or metaphorphosis. I'm hesitant to combine a tag against the dictionary meaning based on a single apparent usage.
I've got a strange thought going here.
There's the TV show, so saying Book with non book is a no to me. There's also discussion of continuing the TV show.
There's discussion of a possible movie, or several movies.
So I want to say no to combining just the number and the book #. (Which also means I'd need to separate these.)
I generally vote "no" on those combinations if I know there is a film or TV series based on the books. If I'm not sure, I vote "undecided".
>62 Edward: I would say yes (as someone who briefly lived near that part of Georgia and must have crossed over that river a dozen times without noticing). Even the photo on the Google Maps page for Hudson River, Georgia has the NYC skyline in it.
Regardless of that, the river in Georgia is not in a valley so I think any tag with the word "valley" in it is definitely safe to combine.
I wouldn't combine them. The Hudson River Valley Heritage Area is in New York State only.
>62 Edward: Let me point out that Hudson River Valley already includes Hudson River Valley (NY and NJ) and a number of other such tags.
https://www.librarything.com/tag/Brossura is up for combination with
When Googling for "Brossura", I came upon its Italian Wikipedia page which, in the Other Languages section, links to the hardback page on English Wikipedia. But some other sources seem to translate Brossura as paperback, so I'm not sure. I wonder if perhaps it's a type of binding that doesn't quite overlap with the English divisions, or if we're before some of other kind of taxonomical difference. Or maybe Wikipedia's just wrong?
The Italian Wikipedia article describes "brossura" as a binding with a cover of paper or cardboard, which sounds more like our "paperback".
>67 lilithcat: It sounds to me more like neither paperback or hardback. Most hardback books I have have covers of paper-covered cardboard.
I thought searching for images of "brossura" might help, but the top images in Google seem to be focusing on the attachment of the pages near the spine area, not the relative thickness of the cover, so I'm wondering if it means neither paperback nor hardback and is referring to something else.
I don't know if this helps, but the cardboard ("cartoncino") in the Italian Wikipedia article refers to thin cardboard or cardstock (it literally means "little cardboard"). The thick cardboard used in a hardcover would be "cartone." "Brossura" in Italian typically refers to a paperback, as opposed to "cartonato" or "rilegato," which would be hardcover. I'm not sure why it's linked to the hardcover Wikipedia article in English. Here is a link with a picture comparison: https://www.webnauta.it/wordpress/le-parti-del-libro/
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.