Series to Delete
Join LibraryThing to post.
The user has created a series for each work.
>1 Collectorator: Sounds like they misunderstood how the Series field works. Rather than entering
"Camfield (#)" they did this. I'll reach out to them and point them to this thread. I wouldn't delete them just yet—give them the opportunity to fix it, which will be easier if we leave the series in place.
>2 lorannen: But is it a series or a publisher's series? Because it looks like they are duplicating work already in a publisher's series. (Or perhaps someone doesn't know what a publisher's series is.)
>3 gilroy: Good point—I hadn't dug too far into it, just noticed the bad formatting right away. It's not a series I'm familiar with (nor is there much info out there via immediate Google-ing). Maybe the member who added these can clarify?
For the record, here's the publishers series I've found: http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Pyramid+-+Barbara+Cartland
At first glance, to me, it looks like perhaps this should be a regular series, not publishers series.
There's also this publisher series: http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Camfield+-+Barbara+Cartland
>6 Collectorator: And they've started doing the same with another series: "Bantam #" this time. I'm emailing them (in addition to profile commenting) this time. If that doesn't get through, I'll loop Tim in.
ETA: For now, I'm just fixing the formatting so the numbers are parenthesized as they should be—not making the call on whether Bantam is a series, for example. My knowledge of these books is rather limited.
Bantam is the publisher. What she is doing now is akin to creating a series called Penguin.
>8 anglemark: https://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Penguin+Books
Like that one? ;-(
>9 abbottthomas: Do you call that a kind thing to do to someone on a Friday afternoon? ;)
>10 anglemark: If you look at the large number of Penguin Books series on LT you can see that really the publishers are to blame but the one I referenced above is taking things too far. As a committed collector of early Penguins I have been tempted to set up 'The First 1000 Penguins' and maybe even the second and third thousands looking back to the time before ISBNs when Penguin Books numbered their publications sequentially. Common sense prevailed!
>8 anglemark: etc. I figured that was the case, but was more concerned with getting the formatting issue under control at first. I'm aware that Bantam and Penguin are publishers, but barring deeper knowledge of the specific books at issue, wasn't certain, and wanted to assume good faith on the user's part.
>13 lorannen: I don't think there is any reason to assume any kind of awareness here. As you speculate above, she doesn't understand the feature or CK, but is doing what she finds convenient for herself. Someone should explain Collections or Tags to her. Moreover, I have a hunch she doesn't read her profile messages either.
>14 anglemark: Yeah, no reply to my email so far, either. Though conspicuously the more recent series added late last week have followed the proper format. Though I don't see any evidence they've made any headway on fixing the earlier, incorrect ones yet.
So, they've either figured it out on their own, or I reached them but they've not gotten back to me yet.
Now, sounds like consensus is these are publisher series (if series at all)? If that's the case, I can do the editing legwork off the clock—I'm not sure messaging them about it will do any good. In my messages, I did link to details about what determines series vs. publisher series.
This is not a series of any sort, Publisher or otherwise:
The "Bantam" one is much smaller and may be better suited to renaming with something specific rather than deletion, I don't know:
>16 lorax: Yeah, the Bantom and Camfield ones that kicked off this discussion were what I was referring to—I should have been clearer. The Penguin thing is ::holds head:: something.
I've been chipping away at the Penguin thing, but it's slow going. Down to under 500 from about 650, though.
>16 lorax: >17 lorannen: I really don't understand your problem with Penguin Books as a publisher's series. They published their titles in a uniform format with a running number on the spine. If that's not a publisher's series, I don't know what is:
Picture from "A Penguin a week : a blog about vintage Penguin paperbacks"
If it's just a matter of size, let's talk about Harlequin Romance (3870 titles catalogued out of 4637 titles to date):
>19 Cynfelyn: Going back to the early days of Penguin Books, they published many series with their own numbering. The general series had several different colours of the same cover design -orange for fiction, green for crime, blue for biography, etc - all numbered sequentially. Later they added other series - their term - such as Poets, Classics, Handbooks, King Penguins and the like numbered sequentially with a letter code denoting the particular series. When ISBNs were in normal use they stopped their house numbering and post-Allen Lane the series classification has become more vague, You probably know all that but I recap because - https://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Penguin+Books - had nothing to do with these series but was a random selection of any of the books published by Penguin from 1935 to the present day. Shelved up they would not have looked lie your nice picture! I don't think that every book published by a publishing house can reasonably be described as a 'series'.
ETA OK, there may be small specialised publishers all of whose works could be seen as a series but I am talking about large publishers with varied outputs.
If that had been what the series consisted of, I'd have agreed with you. But this was a hopeless mishmash of random titles published by Penguin up to the present day, numbered and un-numbered, distinctive covers and otherwise. If it were something like "the first 1000 Penguins" that abbottthomas postulated in #11, I'd agree with you. This is just a mess.
Edited to add: I suspect the "Harlequin Romance" series you link to is also just a list of books from a publisher, and maybe I'll tackle that next. Either way, "He started it" doesn't fly as an excuse from my five-year-old, much less from an adult.
"numbered and un-numbered"
That's the nature of LT. I can't be the only person to have added a work to a series or publisher's series when I didn't have the number, so that it was at least collected in.
"distinctive covers and otherwise"
The cover displayed for a work is presumably worked out by an algorithm, and then displayed across series, publishers' series, touchstones, lists, recommendations etc. If the Folio Society cover is the one picked, it's a bit harsh to criticise other publishers' series on the grounds they're displaying the Folio Society cover. Back in 2014, I suggested an RSI that members could vote on covers for publishers' series, https://www.librarything.com/topic/167010, but it fizzled out on the objection that some publishers' series could be reissued with different covers.
"This is just a mess."
It's a work in progress, like everything on LT. I'd prefer we carried on improving it, rather than rubbing it out. I even notice that you are two places ahead of me on the list of helpers.
"He started it"
I don't know where that came from. If you read it into my message, I'm sorry.
If you'd seen the series before I put several hours into cleaning it up, this would be a lot clearer. I'm talking about random things from the past 5-10 years that happen to have been published by Penguin. Those are mostly gone now since I started with the un-numbered section.
And I don't know what the "helper" list is counting, I've gotten rid of a lot more than 37 instances and haven't added any. Maybe "confirmed" when I added a different series to some books or another.
If you wanted to create a "Vintage Penguin" series from the era you describe, *and curate it* by removing random crap people add, I wouldn't delete it. But this was a total mess, and "All books by a publisher" is in no way, shape, or form a series.
I'm talking about what she did.
You started cleaning it up and then quit.
Why do you think you have to do it?
If you hadn't said, "I wouldn't delete them just yet—give them the opportunity to fix it, which will be easier if we leave the series in place" the series would be gone by now.
Users like this don't clean up their own messes.
>26 Collectorator: Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't want to demand anyone else sink their time into it, and thought I'd be able to get around to it earlier than I have. I also didn't think it was necessary to entirely delete the information (for Camfield, anyway).
ETA: I'm deleting most of the Bantam series now, as I see most of them belong to this series (and already marked as such): http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Bantam+Barbara+Cartland+Library.
You may be right about them generally not cleaning up their messes, but I was assuming good faith here. At least they seem to have gotten the message about formatting any further series at this point. :/
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.