What to move to the new publisher series field

Tim has introduced a new field for publisher series. We're now going to have to decide what belongs there and particularly what to do with the edge cases that have been uncomfortably wedged into regular series so far.

Two examples:
Oxford's Very Short Introductions have been tolerated so far but really they are a publisher series as many of the volumes are reprints from earlier Oxford series (e.g. Past Masters)

University of Oklahoma's Civilization of the American Indian. I put a lot of work into this and moving it strikes me as a pain. But as I note in the series description, a few of the works were reprints that I had to leave out of the LT series.

Thoughts? Other examples?

In general everything that shouldn't have been in the series field to start with (but some infernal fool kept adding) should now goto the Publishers field.

I feel that anything that's described by the publisher should go into the Pub's field, and I would include Dummies in this. Tim unfortunetly feels differently. He's wrong again though.

I actually think Tim was very clear in this thread:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/102076#2295289

as to what constitues a Publisher's series v a series - see in particular message 6.

It seems to me you apply the 'series test':

Are there editions of the works contained in this series that are NOT part of the series?
NO: LT Series
YES: LT Publisher Series

I'm not sure why there seems to be such ambiguity?

Because there are different ways of drawing the line when it is the work that is part of the series, and when it is the specific edition. Everyone agrees that Oxford classics is a Publisher Series, and everyone agrees that Tolkien's writings on Middle Earth is a plain Series, but between there, it gets blurry.

Well perhaps it would be better then to deal with specific examples then.

IMHO, the 'series' listed in #1 should both be publishers' series - there are editions of works belonging to the series that are not part of the series (as referred to by the original poster).

In principle I agree on both of the series in message 1 but as it currently stands there are practical problems. Putting a series in publishers' means moving it out of the catalog column and out of the series statistics page.

Someone did a lot of work putting in the VSIs and surprisingly it never caused an edit war (to my knowledge) despite the fact that many of the books had been previously published. Should we really redo all that work and lose the series functionality when no one is complaining?

I did a lot of work on Civilization of the American Indian. I was very careful not to include previously published works, in this case a very small number out of the total. I'm reluctant to redo all that work and lose the series functions just to add a few volumes that I've already listed and linked in the series description. And the following eminently fixable, but it would currently mean losing the series description where I went to the trouble of listing all of the works in the series for which there are no copies in LT.

Then there is the issue that I was raising in the other thread of series that have had volumes republished. Everyone agrees that reprint series are publishers' series. For those the "are there editions that are not part of the series?" test is straightforward.

But there are also series with multiple authors where the works were commissioned specifically for the series. Being commissioned for the series has a great deal to do with the content of those books. In this case, are later editions put out by other publishers not a part of the original series? I say no.

Then there is the more common and less clear case where a book is accepted for a series based on content and then edited to conform to the standards of the series. Do these series fall apart if single volumes are later republished?

I'll try to come up with some illustrative examples. I suspect that the Fontana History of Europe mentioned on the other thread is one of the first type, but I have to check the publication history. I have some other things I need to do today, so no promises on a time-frame.

All of this is primarily for academic nonfiction series. There is an additional important aspect for these types of book. It's rather unlikely that anyone is collecting these series or any reprint academic series. So the chances of ruffling feathers over an edition not being in a series is smaller. However, the information about the series of original publication is valuable. There are a number of series for which I know who the editors are and I have read one or two of the books and so I have a fairly good idea of the quality and character of the rest of the books before I pick them up. It's that information that I was using LT series to track.

While there will likely eventually be a column and stats for Publisher Series, there is one other big difference. Regular series have that nice link right at the top of a work. PS don't, for obvious reasons. This makes me lean back towards Series for edge cases like Dummies.

There are two fields and we have to divide series into two groups to fit them into the boxes. One way to divide series is along the line of if all the editions of each work belong in the series or not. And the other is to notice that some series are about the same world or characters and some are just a bunch of books that a publisher decided to publish as a group.

For me, the latter is the vastly more important distinction, and in fact is the distinction preserved by the names of the fields. Now to suggest that publisher series should be divided by whether all editions are in the series and on that basis put some of them in the other series field, well that's just perverse.

ETA: Perhaps you should argue for Tim to further split the publisher series field into those where all the editions are in it or not.

Let me make a different suggestion. 1) Put *all* publisher series into the publisher series field. 2) Add a checkbox to the Publisher Field page that indicates whether all the editions are in the series.

The field then controls several things. If it is checked then it appears at the top of the work page like Series does. Before I explain the second effect let me explain the reason for it.

There is a question as to whether to make a column for publisher series and to add them to the stats. The problem is that if someone adds the publisher series column to their catalog and they see a book of theirs listed with a series that it is not in they are not going to be happy. You can explain that it just means that some editions of that work are in the series, but that's not really going to work because the fields in your catalog should describe *your* book, not someone else's. I would make similar arguments for publisher series in the statistics pages.

I was going to argue that the series only show up in the catalog column and the stats for publisher series if the checkbox I mentioned in the first paragraph were checked, but that's not going to satisfy the people who have books in series that don't qualify.

Bear with me, but it seems to me that if we have a value that applies to some editions and not others that the field for that value should be in your catalog and not in CK. By that logic, publisher series of the second kind should be in the book record. Could it work to have publisher series of the first kind in CK and of the second kind in the catalog? Then maybe a publisher series column in the catalog could show either the CK value or the value from the catalog depending on which applies. What do you think?

I think that your "series are about the same world or characters" works great about fiction series, but if all books are put in publisher series because they "are just a bunch of books that a publisher decided to publish as a group," then almost all nonfiction series are going to be publisher series and I can't help but think that would annoy people who mostly read nonfiction.

I think it's best if we use the same world/characters test for fiction series and the "all the editions of each work belong in the series" test for nonfiction series. to me, that seems to be the best way to keep people happy.

8> It's an edge case in terms of content making up the series, not in terms of whether it should be a Series according to the guidelines Tim has set out.

Something important that I think should be noted about the Publisher Series field:

If a book is published by more than one company, like with most Greek Plays, it usually will fall into the Publisher's Series field.

Take A Tale of Two Cities as a good example. It has been published by Penguin, Signet, Bantam, Tor, et al. So each of those series is a publisher's series.

Using Tim's example: Cooking for Dummies. While it has a different author than the other Dummies books, they all come from the same base imprint, the same publisher. That is why it falls as a LT series and not a publisher series.

13> Which is just a longer version of what TineOliver posted above:

Are there editions of the works contained in this series that are NOT part of the series?
NO: LT Series
YES: LT Publisher Series

;)

ETA: And I think it's important to note that just because something is published by more than one publisher, that doesn't mean it's multiple publisher series. There is one Series for LOTR (well, not really, but you get what I mean), not one Publisher Series for each publisher that published it. I know you probably didn't mean the opposite, gilroy, but the way your message was phrased I figure someone is going to quibble with it anyway.

> 13

If a book is published by more than one company, like with most Greek Plays, it usually will fall into the Publisher's Series field.

Take A Tale of Two Cities as a good example. It has been published by Penguin, Signet, Bantam, Tor, et al. So each of those series is a publisher's series.

Assuming it's a series at all. Not every book published is part of a series. A publisher may well issue editions of a variety of classic works, but not label them as, or consider them to be, a series.

While it has a different author than the other Dummies books, they all come from the same base imprint, the same publisher. That is why it falls as a LT series and not a publisher series.

Not exactly. It's an LT series not because they all come from the same imprint, but because that is the only imprint they from which they come. It is the publisher's monopoly that makes it an LT series.

15> Not exactly. It's an LT series not because they all come from the same imprint, but because that is the only imprint they from which they come. It is the publisher's monopoly that makes it an LT series.

Should I now add a quibble about your quibble? ;)

#14 >
I think I tried to translate TineOliver into my form of stupid english. :>

I didn't even consider making LOTR as a publisher's series, as its still one book in three parts, plus the Hobbit. To me, that stays put in Series. Doesn't matter who published it.

I was more looking at things like the Barnes and Noble Classics series, where you have different authors, different books, that the company chose to reprint in a collection, but so did other companies like Penguin and Tor. Since those are more obvious, that's where I started.

17> Right, I didn't think you misunderstood. I think it's just funny because people keep coming along and talking about rules for distinguishing them, but they're often talking about a subset of the overall rules. And then people come along and say "Nuh uh, because _____ doesn't fit that rule!" So we kind of have to be careful (unless you don't mind a lot of followups) to be clear what the rules you're talking about are supposed to be - general or very specific to certain cases.

It seems easiest simply to take the rules as what Tim said in his post on the other thread.

15 Assuming it's a series at all. Not every book published is part of a series. A publisher may well issue editions of a variety of classic works, but not label them as, or consider them to be, a series.
Yeah. I'm starting to see things like Signet Classics in that field, or Penguin Classics, and frankly those cover A LOT of books. I personally wouldn't bother with them as publisher series. But it's probably a losing battle.

ETA: the language of imprint is helpful here, I think. Here's some text from Penguin's website (Signet is part of the Penguin group of publications):

Over time, these two publishing lines combined to form the Signet Classics imprint, which today publishes nearly 400 titles, from Greek mythology to an entire library of Shakespeare's plays, as well as classics of the 20th century.

I wouldn't treat an imprint as a publisher series. Something like "Classics of Naval Literature," on the other hand, is more clearly a publisher series, rather than an imprint. (It's also, on another point, something that should be moved to the new field.)

ETA2: FWIW Penguin refers to Penguin Classics as a series, but Signet Classics as an imprint.

20> And if one of those pet books is later reprinted, completely independent from PetSmart?...

> 16

Absolutely! That's what makes these forums fun. Quibbles and digressions, what would we do without them?

22> So true! But it can be frustrating for all parties in that often the quibbles are about what the poster didn't say rather than what they did say, thus drawing conclusions about what they think based on their lack of stating otherwise.

But a series based on content is a whole different animal than one based on form. Will anyone agree with me on that?

> 20

The books in a series do not have to be authored by the same person.

I'm guessing that when people assume "same author", they are thinking more of fiction, where it would be reasonable to expect that. (I, for one, do not consider those godawful Jill Paton Walsh books to be any part of Dorothy L. Sayers' Peter Wimsey series, even if they do use the same characters.)

With non-fiction series, however, it wouldnt surprise me if, more often than not, the the individual works were not by the same author.

24> But a series based on content is a whole different animal than one based on form. Will anyone agree with me on that?

I certainly agree with you. For example, if I read one of a series based on content, I'm much more likely to want to read ALL of them (or at least, more of them) than I am of one based on publisher. Reading one PetSmart pet book isn't as likely to make me want to read others as reading one Sherlock Holmes book.

But, in the end, we're taking a more complex issue about series, continuity, imprints, etc. and trying to dumb it down to a small amount of data elements in LT. As such, some things don't fit perfectly. The set of Dummies books are a whole different animal than the set of James Bond books, but they're also a whole different animal from the publisher series Oxford Mark Twain.

27>

Cover picture is a complete non-issue. Books are re-issued with different covers all the time, and nobody thinks it changes the series membership. But the book published by GRA is not part of the PetSmart series; the curator of the Petsmart series has two options (which are not mutually exclusive).

1. Remove the greyhound book from the series listing, so that owners of the GRA edition will not see false information (that they book they own is a member of the Petsmart series.)

2. Migrate the entire series to a Publisher Series, which keeps it complete. Now the owners of the GRA edition will instead see that their book has at some point been published as part of the PetSmart series.

Under no circumstances whatsoever should a greyhound fan separate the two editions of what is still unquestionably the same book to reflect series membership. Series is a subsidiary feature of LT and does not trump the basic and fundamental book/work concept.

27> But PetSmart's Greyhounds is still in the PetSmart series!!!

Right, but GRA's Greyhounds is not. And they're combined together because they are the exact same content.

So in other words, what was formerly a Series becomes a Publisher Series, because the original publisher no longer has a monopoly over all the works in the series. The only other option is to "pluck that out" as you say, leaving a swiss-cheesed regular Series.

On the other hand, LOTR or other series never have to worry about being demoted from Series to Publisher Series. This is what I mean by the "monopoly" Series being more of an "edge case" than than the "content" Series. Sometimes they fall off the edge.

I would keep the Greyhound book in the PetSmart series. It was originally intended to be part of the series, and it was written specifically for that series.

Hadn't that come up before, that if a work was originally written for a specific series, but later published separately from the series, it's still part of the series?

30> I would keep the Greyhound book in the PetSmart series. It was originally intended to be part of the series, and it was written specifically for that series.

And if you did so, you'd be breaking the "monopoly" guidelines that Tim has laid out, wouldn't you? Or are you just saying what you'd do if it worked like you wanted?

And yes, it came up before, I believe with a book that was written as part of some yearly contest. And the majority opinion was that the book should be broken out of the Series. That's not what Series are for (the publishing history of a book).

31> No, I was speaking in hypotheticals, the "if it were up to me, based on what I understand from previous discussion".

Apparently, I missed a chunk of the conversation, then, because I did think the consensus was to leave it in the series and not break it out. But if I misunderstood/misremembered, then I'll be glad to change my position, especially now that we do have the Publishers Series option to list all the works in a series like that.

It may help to think of it this way.

Due to the lack of a true editions layer at LT, there are two types of problems that can happen with series:

1. Wrong data, where books are listed as part of a series they aren't members of. (GRA Greyhounds listed as part of the Petsmart series.)

2. Missing data, where books are not listed as part of a series they do belong to. (Petsmart Greyhounds not listed as part of the Petsmart series.)

For Series, LT policy is to avoid #1 at the expense of incurring #2 -- if there are editions of a book that are not members of a given series, that work must be removed from the series.

The problem of incomplete data this creates is addressed by Publisher Series, which errs the other way, and can be thought of as "has ever been published in X series". So all editions of the Greyhound book will have the PetSmart series appear under Publisher Series, because it has at some point been published in this form.

And, I reiterate, separating the editions based on series membership is not appropriate.

32> Okay, thanks for the clarification. It's hard, since sometimes people are talking about the way LT is supposed to work, but sometimes the way they wished LT worked. I'm guilty as well.

I think one of the guiding principles has been "Don't make stuff show up in the Series column of someone's catalog that doesn't apply to their book." I think that addresses a lot of the issues.

33> Right, the Publisher Series has some problems of its own (lack of edition specificity being the main one), but it helps address that previous annoyance. As such, I (personal opinion) feel we should NOT have swiss-cheesed series and should move them over to Publisher Series. Otherwise, you're presenting confusing/incomplete data and just inviting someone who doesn't know all the nitty gritty details to go in and add it back into the Series again.

ETA: Parmesan Series should be allowed, though.

I agree with keristars (ETA in 30 - you all type too fast!), and I don't think this breaks any guidelines. The first statement in the explanation of a series has to do with intention: "A good rule of thumb is that series have a conventional name and are intentional creations, on the part of the author or publisher." The "no monopoly" statement comes later, in a specific discussion of publisher series, and one in which he says Dummies is ok as a series.

If something was originally intentionally created as part of a series, and later published separately, I don't think we need to move everything over. The work was still originally created as part of that series.

On the other hand, where publishers series have been sitting in the series field (Library of America, Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, Great Books, etc.), with only those books listed that don't exist outside the series (a particular selection of Proust's writings, for instance), it makes sense to move those series now to the publishers series, and then add any books that had to be excluded under the stricter "series" rules.

36>

If something was originally intentionally created as part of a series, and later published separately, I don't think we need to move everything over. The work was still originally created as part of that series.

I disagree very strongly.

If you do that, you're telling people who have a copy of the separately-published edition that their book is a part of Series X, which it is not. This is bad data.

36> If something was originally intentionally created as part of a series, and later published separately, I don't think we need to move everything over. The work was still originally created as part of that series.

Why? It seems it simply makes the Series some sort of publishing history adjunct, rather than a piece of information that applies to your book. And it especially seems like it's pointless given the new Publisher Series field, where you can still keep the relationship without making any claims on someone's particular edition being in a specific Series.

37> If you do that, you're telling people who have a copy of the separately-published edition that their book is a part of Series X, which it is not. This is bad data.

Well, coming from their point of view, I think what they're saying is:
You're telling people who have a copy of the separately-published edition that their book was originally created as a part of Series X

Which isn't bad data, just data I don't think the Series field is intended for.

39 - Why not?
""A good rule of thumb is that series have a conventional name and are intentional creations, on the part of the author or publisher."

37 If you do that, you're telling people who have a copy of the separately-published edition that their book is a part of Series X, which it is not.

How is it not? Say I own a copy of the history of 18th century underwater basketweaving, which was originally commissioned and written as volume 15 of the Oxford University Press's History of World Basketweaving. Then later, Oxford that set of books goes out of print, but Oxford republishes the book on its own, because it was particularly popular, perhaps without reference to the original series. Does that make the *work,* not the edition, any less part of the original series for which it was intentionally written?

19 >

This is where you might run into a problem of some form, dealing with the classics issue. (And I'd be guilty of it.)

The Signet banner on the cover looks like a series label, which means people will create a publisher series based on that banner. Is it wrong? Yes, probably is.

The other issue you'll run across is that the publisher may create a list on their own website that designates a group of books as a series. (I'll point to Tor Classics as an example here, which is where I started work this morning.) Per that publisher, it is a series of books that they've created. So it will also create a publisher series link.

*checks how many books he has to go take Signet off of now. mutter*

41>

Does that make the *work,* not the edition, any less part of the original series for which it was intentionally written?

Yes, it absolutely does. The work is only a member of the series if every edition is a member of the series.

To take up the examples in the original post, and to add one more:

1) Oxford's Very Short Introductions (deliberate creation of publisher, but some of the books reprints from a previous series deliberately created by the same publisher, the Past Masters series)

2) University of Oklahoma's Civilization

3) Oxford's Past Masters series (now out of print, but what many of the books in example 1 were originally commissioned for)

2 seems to me a clear case that should be moved. It may be annoying to move them all over, but the fact that you can't list some books in the current series, per series rules, makes it a clear case for the publisher series field, in my view.

1 and 3 are trickier. Do we take out the Short Introductions, since many were originally published as part of a now out of print series by the same publisher? The publisher does, actually, have a monopoly on those works, though they've been published in 2 different series by the same publisher. (And books can be legitimately part of more than one series.) Do we take out the Past Masters, even though those books in it were deliberately, intentionally created as part of that series, because they've subsequently been published in another series by the same publisher (or perhaps the series was simply repackaged...)?

40> As I've said before:
"A good rule of thumb" isn't supposed to be all-inclusive. In fact, it often implies that there's going to be exceptions. And that's the case with Series. I'd posit that the vast majority of Series DO fit that rule of thumb. It's like taking "a good rule of thumb is that all mammals have breasts and bear live young" and claiming that this means monotremes aren't mammals.

On the other hand "Never create publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question." is pretty darn specific.

---
You're picking out the one part and ignoring the other. And this was written pre-Publisher Series era, so it means don't create them as Series unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the works. Now that we have Publisher Series, it's fine to put them there.

41> Again, the Series is not a publishing history field. I think the bit about "monopoly" is pretty clear on that.

ETA: Just FYI, this was composed while you were composing 44.

Say there's a series that's a deliberate creation by a set of authors and publishers. Nancy Drew, perhaps.

I have a copy of book 15 (The Mystery in the Old Barn) of the original Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, which is the original series for which it was written. (This is hypothetical; I'm probably mangling the names). Later, a publisher (maybe the same, maybe different) releases a selection of the books originally published in the Nancy Drew Mystery Series, as well as several new books, under the series name Nancy Drew Supersleuth. The *work* that was book 15 in the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories series is now numbered as book 4 in the Supersleuth series.

Questions: 1) Would you say that The Mystery in the Old Barn can no longer be listed in the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories series, because it has now been republished as part of Nancy Drew Supersleuth? 2) My edition was not published as part of the Nancy Drew Supersleuth series, but as book 15 of the original series. Does that mean that this work cannot be listed in the Supersleuth series (since not all *editions* are part of the Supersleuth series)?

If we're being technical, it says "Also avoid publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question."

And: "Like many concepts in the book world, "series" is a somewhat fluid and contested notion. "

What I'm saying doesn't really matter, because what I'm advocating is *non-action,* rather than doing something. I'm saying it's not really worth moving a whole series over to the publisher series field just because one book gets published separately. It's not worth the effort. But whatever.

46> I think the reason you're getting tangled up is because you're ignoring the fact that all these books would already get tied together under content. Who cares if some of the series have to be moved to Publisher Series because of how they marketed the books? Why should Series carry marketing clutter?

Where's the content rule of thumb?

I think it's possible to frame a difference of opinion and interpretation in other ways than: I'm correct, you're misunderstanding things.

47> If we're being technical, it says "Also avoid publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question."

I'm not sure where you're looking. I'm talking about this:
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Common_knowledge#Series
Never create publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question. So, the Dummies guides are a series of works. But the Loeb Classical Library is a series of editions, not of works.
Which is the link that appears directly above the Series field.

50> I never said there was a content "rule of thumb". It's one of those fuzzy areas we have to navigate. But the lack of guidance on it doesn't make it disappear, and it doesn't make these other issues go away.

51> I don't believe I did frame it that way. I've said over and over in this thread and the other related ones that there's a lot of stuff that's opinion and a lot of stuff where we have had good guidance from Tim. And then there's also a lot of stuff where there are some nebulous consensuses formed which people may or may not be remembering correctly (myself included). But if, as someone does like Collectorator does and says they're going to separate out specific editions so they'll better fit the Publisher Series field, I'm definitely going to say "I'm correct; you're misunderstanding things" on those specific points.

Say there's a series that's a deliberate creation by a set of authors and publishers. The Oxford History of Basketweaving, perhaps.

I have a copy of book 15 (Underwater Basketweaving in the Scottish Enlightenment) which was commissioned by Oxford University Press as part of its chronological Oxford History of Basketweaving, covering the ancient world to the 19th century. Later, a publisher (maybe the same, maybe different) releases a selection of the books originally published in the Oxford History of Basketweaving, as well as several new books, under the series name Early Modern Basketweaving. The *work* that was book 15 in the The Oxford History of Basketweaving series is now numbered as book 4 in the Early Modern Basketweaving series.

What makes this different? I grant that, if I were entering the information for the first time, publishers series is probably the best place for both the Oxford History and the Early Modern series. It's where I would put it if I were entering them both for the first time, especially if I knew that the 2 series had some overlap. However, if there were already an existing series on LT with the 150 works commissioned for the Oxford History series, and then this new series came out, I wouldn't go to the trouble to move it over when the Early Modern series came out. (Chances are, the copyright page in the book would even say that this book was originally published as part of the Oxford History series.)

Would it make a difference if the 2 series were published by the same publisher?

What's wrong with having both for the time being, a Publisher's Series to list the whole series, but keep the current series for titles (if any) unique to the series?

ie. New Canadian Library

> 53

I have a copy of book 15 (Underwater Basketweaving in the Scottish Enlightenment) . . .

Oh, my god! I have been looking for that book for years! I was beginning to think it was apocryphal. Wherever did you find it?

53> Right, this example again. It's an edge case that isn't actually the same as the main one you're talking about, which is a series published by two different publishers. That's the main case. I don't feel like it's a very useful thing to do to try to base your argument for the main case on the edge case. I'm not even sure if the edge case has ever happened!

I'd rather just stick to the actual main case, because the fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of areas where LT can't perfectly map the real world. Sometimes things just don't fit discrete boxes that computers (and classifiers) want to put them in. But sometimes, they do.

I'm looking at the explanatory information on any series page. I don't know who wrote the series wiki, but I always take the language on non-wiki pages as more official than the wiki pages: http://www.librarything.com/series/Oxford+Mark+Twain

I was reacting to the "you're getting tangled up" phrase. I'm not offended, but to me that reads like: you are misunderstanding things. What I was trying to do with that post was to set up an analogy, to help think through the core issues of definition and what exactly is the difference - if any - between series created by publishers where one book appears separately later, and say a series of novels created by publishers and/or authors where one book appears separately later.

as the main one you're talking about, which is a series published by two different publishers.
I'm a bit lost. Did I say that?

58> I assume that's what you meant when you said


Message 30: keristars
I would keep the Greyhound book in the PetSmart series. It was originally intended to be part of the series, and it was written specifically for that series.

Hadn't that come up before, that if a work was originally written for a specific series, but later published separately from the series, it's still part of the series?

-------
Message 36: rsterling
I agree with keristars (ETA in 30 - you all type too fast!), and I don't think this breaks any guidelines.


Did I misread?

As far as getting tangled up, I was saying you were concentrating on one aspect (publication history) and ignoring some of the other factors that go into a series. And thanks for the reference on the wording. I agree that the wiki should be changed to match the page (and both should be brought up to date with regards to the new CK field). But I don't find a significant difference between "Also avoid X unless Y" and "Never do X unless Y".

Maybe we are talking about different things. I'm talking about books originally created as part of a series that are later published separately from that series. That's it. That later publication might be in a different series or might be standalone, and that later publication might or might not be put out by a different publisher.

The hypothetical cases I have given are not edge cases, but exactly what I've been talking about all along, and what I thought this debate was about. The Short Introductions case mentioned in post one would be similar to what I described in 53.

Can you give an example of something you think is the main case, and explain why you think that's different from the examples I'm talking about?

60> Since these were crossposted, I think the answer to your last question is in #59.

So is the only meaningful difference that there are 2 different publishers? Then, if the original Nancy Drews were put out by one publisher, and the new Nancy Drews by another publisher, no overlapping books could be listed in either series (or, both series would have to go in publisher series)? I'm trying to work through the logic here about what you think it is that makes the difference, that changes the status of a work when it gets published again separate from the series for which it was originally written.

62> They're part of TWO Publisher Series (well, assuming the GRA did a PS. If not, they're part of the PetSmart PS. Why is that? Because a regular Series wouldn't apply to all works. I'm not sure why I'm bothering since this has already been explained over and over to you by different posters. I just don't think since you disagree with it so you pretend it never happened.).

63> Perhaps I could clarify. I would say that both of these are edge cases in terms of general concepts about series:

1) Publisher A publishes book Q as part of "series" X. (where "series" isn't the LT term, but what a publisher might use on the cover)
Publisher A re-publishes book Q as part of "series" Y. (or no series at all)

2) Publisher A publishes book Q as part of "series" X.
Publisher B publishes book Q as part of "series" Y. (or no series at all)

I just feel like #1 is the edge case in terms of what minimal guidance Tim has given us on what an LT Series (as opposed to just "series") isn't. If it's not already clear, I agree that there is a lot of opinion involved on this one and I'm not saying "I'm right; you're wrong."

But on #2, Tim has given us a LOT of guidance on it, so I don't think it's an edge case in terms of how to apply the LT term Series to it.

Now, and here is why I talked about getting tangled up, the Nancy Drew ones have a lot of other factors, being that the content of the books have a lot more to do about whether it's a Series (again, since Tim has never bothered to define what a Series IS and talks more about what a Series ISN'T, I can't point you to any official guidance and have to fall back on the "concensus" argument, which you may rightfully question).

And in all this, there's the fact that it's a community and nothing's perfect. I have a series of books that the author/publisher calls the Agent Cormac series (though they didn't start calling that until a few books in). The Series on LT is named "Polity: Ian Cormac". C'est la vie.

ETA I wrote this in response to 62, and hadn't yet seen 64.

To change topics slightly to the to the GRA and PetSmart case, there are a couple of separate issues.

1 - combination. If the content of the books is the same, regardless of who publishes them, they should be combined. That's just about how combination works on LT, not about series.

2 - series. Here as I understand it, the book was originally written as part of the PetSmart series, but later republished as part of the GRA series. The content is the same, thus the books have been correctly combined into a single work. So the questions we've been debating are whether
(a) the work has to be removed from the PetSmart series because some people's copies are in the GRA series - yes/no
(b) the work has to be removed from the GRA series because some people's copies are in the PetSmart series - yes/no
(c) the PetSmart series can no longer qualify as a series, but *must* be moved to publisher series
(d) the subsequent GRA series can only be listed as a publisher series - yes/no

On (d) I don't think there's been much debate. I think that's a yes: GRA is a publisher series, and should only be listed there.
On (b) it seems like most here think yes.
On (a) and (c) some people think yes, some people think no. Since the work was originally written as part of the PetSmart series, I'm ok with both PetSmart staying as a series, and this work being listed within it. If the PetSmart series were already here, I would not take the further action of moving PetSmart to the publisher series, simply because some of its books were later republished outside the series. Some people here disagree, and would actively move the PetSmart series to Publisher Series if that happened. That's fine. I'm not going to stop them, though I don't think it's worth it, and don't see the need.

If the answer to both (a) and (b) is yes, then Collectorator is right, the books are (rightly) combined into one work, and that work is not listed in a series. However, it can be listed as part of *both* publisher series if both are in publisher series field. (Alternatively, I personally do not mind if a is no, b is yes, and this particular work maintains its listing as part of the PetSmart series, but also gets GRA as a publisher series. But others disagree, and think both series should be moved to PS. )

You could still have a Nancy Drew Mystery series, (Ordered by date of publication, maybe) because there is no doubt that ALL the books are intended to belong to the series of books about Nancy Drew. But if you wanted a series that was only one or the other it would have to be in publishers series.

64 - so in your cases 1 and 2, whether or not the series was an intentional creation is not considered/relevant/a factor, i.e. whether the book was intentionally created to be part of the series.

62>

Why does the GRA have to stay in the PetSmart Greyhound again, please?

But we're taking the PetSmart Greyhound out of PetSmart because ... ? Why was that?


Because there is no "Petsmart Greyhound" or "GRA Greyhound" on Librarything. The editions layer that would be necessary for this distinction doesn't exist. There is only the combined work of "Greyhound", containing some books published by Petsmart and some by GRA. The work is not part of the Petsmart Series -- how could it be, this copy right here says it's from GRA, and doesn't say anything about any series. But the new Publisher Series allows us to capture the publishing history of the book, and say that it has been published as part of a series.

So now the two Greyhounds are combined together but are not a part of any series anywhere.


No, there's ONE GREYHOUND. That's not going to change, and you honestly seem to be the only person having trouble with this. I know that your own collecting is very edition-focused, but LT isn't set up well for that sort of distinction; you can track it in your own catalog, but you can't, for instance, easily see who else is collecting your Junior Deluxe Editions. It's a shame, and I think what you really ought to do to get what you really want is advocate for a true Editions layer on LT, rather than trying to make the Publisher Series act as one.

(And the Greyhound work has still been published as part of the Petsmart Series, so that Publisher Series remains valid -- that's "any edition", whereas the Series is "all editions".)

66 - I don't mean should we have one giant series that combines all those -- we could certainly do that -- but my question was what happens to those particular series that I mentioned. They overlap partially, but not completely; they have different numbering. They may or may not be put out by the same publisher.

Are you saying then that the original Nancy Drew Mystery Stories series would have to be removed from the series field if another series came along that overlapped partially with it?

>68 lorax:

A series can definitely be considered as consisting of works, not editions. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are considererd part of the same LT series, even though they can be published separately (in Sweden, they even used to be under two different publishers). A series created by a single author, or a fixed collaboration, is always a series, no matter how it is published. The question is why commisioned series should be treated differently.

The difference between content-based series, like Nancy Drew, and publisher series is that the former is a series of works and the latter is a series of editions.

I think what rsterling is saying is that a set of books intentionally created to be part of a series, such as the Underwater Arts series of which Underwater Basketweaving is #15, makes it a series of works and if it published separately it is still part of the series. To which I say, maybe, I'll have to think about it.

71>

I think you have your reference number wrong there; I'm agreeing with you.

#54

Isn't New Canadian Library an imprint and not a series?

I saw Panther Books (definitely an imprint) in the publisher series earlier today and deleted it.

I don't believe Publisher Series should be for tracking imprints.

So, is the fact that a book is intentionally created as part of a series enough? For the most part a commissioned series will have some sort of theme that unites them. But what if a publisher just commissioned a bunch of random fiction and labeled them a series. if one of those works were published separately, would there be justification if someone took offense that LT said that there edition were part of that series?

#74

Hmm - following up myself I have just read http://www.mcclelland.com/NCL/index.html and it seems it might well be both an imprint and a series.

65> I think that's an excellent writeup of the issues. I'm going to reprint it here so people don't have to keep scrolling up:


(a) the work has to be removed from the PetSmart series because some people's copies are in the GRA series - yes/no
(b) the work has to be removed from the GRA series because some people's copies are in the PetSmart series - yes/no
(c) the PetSmart series can no longer qualify as a series, but *must* be moved to publisher series
(d) the subsequent GRA series can only be listed as a publisher series - yes/no


I agree on your conclusions on B and D. But while there is disagreement on A and C, I think there's significant differences. I feel that A is a case where we've been given a lot more direction from Tim. The publisher no longer has a monopoly on the works (I'm assuming different publishers and not just different labels here, I think). But on C, as I said in #35 "As such, I (personal opinion) feel we should NOT have swiss-cheesed series and should move them over to Publisher Series." I don't think this is one where we've gotten any official guidance and since this is a new situation there's been no time for any sort of consensus to form.

I'm suddenly realizing that part of the issue here may be that some people, certainly Collectorator and probably rsterling, view Publisher Series as second-class citizens, and that series go there only if they don't "qualify" to be "real" series, while some of us (myself, brightcopy) view the two as equal status but reflecting different information. So I don't see it as a "demotion" or some such for a series to be a Publisher's Series rather than a Series; it's just different, but others see it as a slap in the face for a series they care about to be "relegated" to a Publisher's Series because not all the books in it are exclusive to the series. Is that a fair assessment?

Regarding Collectorator's #79, reformatting for clarity:

Some people wouldn't like it if their GRA Greyhound book that they listed as a single publication ended up in a Series. My answer: tough.

With all due respect, I'm quite glad that you aren't running LT, because you have just said that you don't care about completely false statements about my books appearing in my catalog. Which is anathema to the entire philosophy of LT user-controlled data. My copy of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is not, never has been, and never will be published by Signet Classics. If the Series field lied to me and told me it was, I would be 100% justified in deleting that data. Instead, as it stands, the Publisher Series field tells me that the work has appeared as a Signet Classics. And I'm fine with that.

To be blunt, your choice for such things is a complete Publisher Series or a "swiss-cheesed" Series, because people who care about these things will watch and clean up their own books.

80> To be fair, I did use the word "demoted" quite a bit earlier. It was more of in the terms that it's one way. A Series could become a Publisher Series due to a publishing event, but a Publisher Series couldn't become a Series.

I don't think of the PS as second-class, but for me, personally, they aren't a useful field. It's just a different type of data, much like Original Publication Date is different from Primary Language. On the surface, they seem similar, but they're really two different things when you compare something like the LOTR series to the Oxford Classics publisher series.

82>

No, I'm saying I wouldn't allow them to be separated -- as you can see from all the cleanup I'm in the middle of from your "Junior Deluxe Editions" separations -- and that I wouldn't allow my GRA Greyhound book to be labeled as part of the PetSmart series.

84> Please, do go for it. I think at this point only Tim will be able to convince/constrain you.

#84 No its not removing the series information it's moving it to where it belongs - the publisher series field.

(In my mind Dummies is also now a publisher series, and the original series field can be restricted for content only series - But I have to convince Tim of my wisdom first)

>80 lorax:, 81
I think part of the "second class" status of publisher series may disappear when / if we get the other series features (description, catalog column*, statistics page) for publisher series.

*I'd personally like a column that concatenated the two types of series, but am only expecting a separate column for each.

#37: What do you mean it's not part of the series? If a publisher just releases The Hounds of the Baskervilles as a stand-alone book, that doesn't mean it's not part of a series. If you have a Greyhound book that written by the exact template of the Petsmart Greyhounds--anyone that's seen three of these books (hypothetically) could tell that it was written for this series--why does it matter that GRA republished one?

88> Look at it this way - image LT added a work-level Publisher field. Now imagine someone filled it out with, say, HarperCollins. Then later HarperTorch comes along and prints it in mass-market paperback. It would bother me if there was a piece of data attached to my HarperTorch book that said HarperCollins, even though one is just an imprint of the other. It's just not applicable to my book, even though it IS correct data in the sense that it says "this was a book originally published under the HarperCollins imprint."

Now, I understand that you might say "but this is different." And to you, I can see that it might be. But to me and the others on my side of the argument, it isn't fundamentally different. I don't want my book that has no PetSmart anywhere on it to be in a series that says PetSmart. However, I'm okay with it being in a "Publisher Series" field in much the same way I would have been okay if that theoretical "Publisher" field above had been "Original Publisher" instead.

Again, you're leaving out the "intentional creation" part. I'm with Collectorator and prosfilaes on this one.

90> Again, no I'm not. I'm just putting it in the Publisher Series field rather than the Series field.

92> Sometimes I wonder if you even read the messsages you reply to. This isn't about the editions being combined, it's about a field being placed on the work and in the catalog.

94> SERIES, not PUBLISHER SERIES.

Yes, I think everyone's on the same page. Some of us are saying that if the *work* was intentionally created as part of a series, it doesn't stop being part of that series when it's published later. Some are saying it does stop being a series (in the original LT definition). ETA: Clarification - The latter group is saying that 1) the book stops being part of that "series", and 2) that series is no longer a series in the LT definition. It stops being a series and starts being a publisher series.

Part of the difficulty here is that there are really three different types of series and we only have words for two of them.

Type 1, an author writes a set of books and says they are all in a series. This is clearly a LT series.

Type 2, a publishers collects a set of previously published books and reprints them under a uniform series title. This is clearly a LT publishers' series.

Type 3, an editor or group of editors organizes a set of books to be published for the first time under a series title. There are three difficulties here. First, the level of editorial control varies. Sometimes it means commissioning the work, perhaps rejecting submissions that don't meet standards and doing significant editing of the text. Sometimes it means selection and editing to standards but not commission. And sometimes it means little more than selection. Second, later on individual titles may be reprinted by other publishers without the series designation. Third, sometimes series that are primarily new publications also include some reprints.

The main issue is whether the series pertains to the work or only to the specific edition. Type 1 pertain to the work. Type 2 pertain to the edition. Some of us are arguing that type 3 pertain to the work as well, that the control exercised by the series editor(s) impacts not just the edition features (the cover, format, introduction, etc) but the actual content of the work. And therefor it is correct to display the series data prominently at the work level. Dealing with this kind of series is not simple for the reasons described above but I don't like the blanket solution of equating type 3 and type 2 series.

Publishers' series is at the moment a hobbled feature compared to regular series. But even if that changes there is still an issue. If type 2 and type 3 series are lumped together, there is no way to distinguish the series of original publication from the later reprint series for a particular work. And, again, there are some of us who think the series of original publication is significant.

98> I think I'm done with you. You seem to once again to be willfully misunderstanding. Otherwise, I would have expected this to be your post:

The PetSmart series is a SERIES.
The Wrinkle in Time books are a SERIES.
If someone republishes a PetSmart book, Lorax removes the SERIES information from that PetSmart book, thereby REMOVING it from the SERIES to which it belongs and moving that information to PUBLISHER SERIES where it now belongs

Without that key piece, you're not talking about what I'm talking about. You seem to be the only one not getting that. rsterling gets it. eromsted, reading_fox, lorax, etc. get it. Some of them DISAGREE that it should be moved, but at least they get the argument. But you, you seem to not even get the argument, so what's the point in arguing with you?

99> Yes, I think you've described the situation well. It is a situation of three types of things and two fields. This is what I tried to describe earlier when I said "The set of Dummies books are a whole different animal than the set of James Bond books, but they're also a whole different animal from the publisher series Oxford Mark Twain."

I do 100% see the argument you and others are making for your desire for how LT handles it, and I hope you see mine. Different people prioritize information differently. There's some we come together one (works versus books) and some we don't. At this point, I think the ball may be in Tim's court because it's a matter of picking which way to go. I feel that the existing standard is that when some book is published outside of the original series, it gets moved out of that series. Do you feel that is what the existing standard is, or not? I'm sure there's disagreement on that, too. I can't point to anything Tim has said specifically on that one in either direction. I can only fall back on the "it's not applicable to all works" argument, but then you and others DO feel it's applicable to all works.

So, like I said, I think both sides will only be satisfied by an official pronouncement on high. I thank you and several other members who have argued this in good faith. It's been an interesting discussion and I look forward to getting it resolved. I could live with either decision, even if I prefer one over the other.

101> You have everything you need should you wish to understand, if only you actually read the messages. Number 99 describes it pretty thoroughly.

>100 brightcopy:
The language under "What is a series" contains statements that go in both directions. So it says, "a good rule of thumb is that series have a conventional name and are intentional creations, on the part of the author or publisher." Intentional creation gets at what I think is the primary characteristic of a type 3 series.

Then it says, "also avoid publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question. So, the Dummies guides are a series of works. But the Loeb Classical Library is a series of editions, not of works." The clear intent here is to exclude type 2 series. Read literally, any type 3 series that includes any prior or subsequently published book is also excluded.

But was that intended? Or was Tim trying to make the best of a messy situation and the guidelines simply don't apply in any clear way to type 3 series.

>101 Collectorator:
A Wrinkle in Time is, I believe, an author designated series. We all already agree on that case. I don't know anything about PetSmart but I suspect it would fall in what I'm calling type 3. That's the kind of series we don't all agree on.

103> Yeah, I agree that depending on how you define some of the base terms, the actual phrases become more ambiguous. Say you have two editions, one with "Oxford Underwater Basket Weaving Collection" printed on it and another that is printed by a completely different publisher (say, HarperCollins). To me, that makes the "Oxford Underwater Basket Weaving Collection" a series of editions, not works. The thing that distinguishes the two editions is that one is published by Oxford as part of their "Oxford Underwater Basket Weaving Collection" and the other isn't. That's the #1 distinguishing characteristic (assuming the content inside is the same) to me. So I read that sentence and say "yep, it was a series of editions, not works."

I understand that you read it differently and say "even though it says nothing whatsoever about being originally published/created as part of the 'Oxford Underwater Basket Weaving Collection', it's STILL is intrinsically", so therefore it's not a series of editions because both editions ARE still 'Oxford Underwater Basket Weaving Collection' editions, even if only one says it and the other was published completely out of that context."

And then of course there are the other wrinkles of "well, the same publisher republished it, but just not in the same publisher series the second time", or "it republished it, but in a completely different publisher series the second time (Oxford Obscure Arts and Crafts Collection)", etc.

So, in short, yeah, the phrases don't necessarily help when you don't agree on the words that make them up. :D

104/105> Okay, show of hands, who here thinks Collectorator "gets" the difference between a Wrinkle of Time series and a PetSmart Dog Breeds series, and why how one is handled may in fact be different than the other? Anyone want to rush to her defense and chime in on how lorax and I are just clueless and have no idea what we're talking about?

I wonder if it would help if everyone tried to remember to use "Series" when they mean the LibraryThing Common Knowledge field of that name, "Publisher Series" when they meant that CK field, and "series" when they meant some other context. It would make it clear when people were referring specifically to what should go in certain LibraryThing database fields, and when they're referring to something that doesn't necessarily apply to LibraryThing.

E.g. "PetSmart published a series of books, one of which has been reprinted and is no longer part of the Series. Perhaps they should all be moved to a Publisher Series?"

Except that I have a few books that were reprinted as textbooks with special permission - and say so. If the greyhound book says in it, 'Reprinted by special permission from the PetSmart...' then I have no problem with it being part of the series.

There are enough Publisher's series where someone gets a bright idea that they want to publish a lot of books on some topic under some special label, without any other connection noticable by the normal user, and also sell the books/allow the books to be sold to another publisher in another country without that series label on them.

Let's not make this personal. I do think Collectorator understands what's going on, but she's using different tactics of argument. She's emphasizing the analogy and basic commonality between what eromsted calls type 1 and (deliberately, intentionally created) type 3 series.

Other sides of the argument are focusing on the works/editions distinction, or on the author/publisher distinction (or content-based/non-content-based? but then petsmart is also content-based), with the effect of placing a big wedge between type 1 on the one hand and types 2 and 3 on the other, and making type 2 and 3 more alike than they might otherwise be considered to be.

Wrinkle of Time series and a PetSmart Dog Breeds series
What one side is arguing is that there's a fundamental difference* between these, which matters. What another side is arguing is that what they have in common - as a deliberately created series, whoever created them - is more important, and is what fundamentally qualifies them as a series, and not simply a publisher series.

*What I and others have been pushing for is for someone to distinguish exactly what that difference is, and why it makes the difference. Leave aside, first, the question of whether something is republished. That's further step. So start with this: if both sets of books are deliberately created as a series, are they both series? Is anyone claiming that something is less a series because the people who decided to create them as a series (ETA when the books are created, not post-facto) are publishers rather than the authors of the books? I'm just trying to clarify things here, and see exactly where the disagreement is.

111: Is anyone claiming that something is less a series because the people who decided to create them as a series are publishers rather than the authors of the books?

No, I don't believe so. What people are claiming is that while some editions of a LibraryThing work may belong to the series, the work itself may not. And that is what the "Publisher Series" field was created for.

I want to try to breakdown eromsted's type 3 more, since I agree that this is the category about which there's disagreement.

Here's what I see as the basic definition of this type:
"Type 3, an editor or group of editors organizes a set of books to be published for the first time under a series title."
The for the first time is IMHO important here.

Now there may be several different types of things under this category, and as eromsted says, there may be varying levels of editorial control.
3a. Case where books are commissioned for the series. Petsmart. Oxford Handbooks of High-Altitude Linguistics.
3b. Case where books the publisher decides to put out are fit into various pre-existing "series" that the publisher has. This happens a lot with academic presses. See for instance the various series and imprints put out by Cornell University Press. http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_series.html These books are not likely to be commissioned specifically for the series, but they may be selected (from authors' book proposals) with a series in mind.

There is another category, which eromsted places here but which I think is actually type 2: where a series with primarily new works also contains a reprint of something previously published. Here's a good example, which includes both new scholarly work and some historical, previously published texts, all released within the same publisher series: http://www.librarything.com/series/Borzoi+Book+on+Latin+America
To me, these can't qualify as series any more once they start reprinting things that have previously been published outside the series; they're publishers series at that point.

Does the relative number of reprints matter?

In my example from the top, The Civilization of the American Indian, there are 15 reprints out of 263 volumes. And some of those are first time translations into English.

115: Does the relative number of reprints matter?
No. In that example, 248 works meet the definition of the LibraryThing "Series", the others don't; this is unfortunate. Or rather, it used to be unfortunate, but now they can all be listed together as a "Publisher Series".

Ok, I'm still trying to think through this. From what I can tell, here are the things that might be argued to make a difference between things that can stay in the series field, and things that need to be in the publisher series field. I want to try to list them to see which ones people think actually matter, and which ones don't, and in what circumstances.

A) whether the series was created by a publisher or the author(s)
B) whether the works were originally created intentionally as part of that series (or, put another way, whether the series is an intentional creation by someone)
C) whether the series is content based or something-else(?)-based
(this distinction is still a little fuzzy to me; I can see what it means on the extremes - Nancy Drew vs. Great Books of the Western World -- but to some extent many or most series, publisher or not, have some content base. So this distinction isn't IMHO helpful enough or sharp enough in between those two extremes)
D) whether some of the works have appeared in other editions before the series was created (related to B, since this would mean that those works were not created intentionally as part of the series)
E) whether some of the works originally part of a series have appeared afterwards, published separately

Both D and E have to do with work/editions questions. A has to do with author/publisher distinction. B has to do with intentional creation. C with content. D seems to me the clearest case, but also a subpoint of B.

Say we agree that A isn't what matters. So what, then, is it that distinguishes these two cases:
-- A publisher publishes a chronological set of histories, specifically commissioned for its series on the History of XYZ. One of those histories is later republished, without reference to the original series. Does that history as a *work* cease to be part of that series because this particular edition makes no reference to that series (even though the book was initially commissioned and created intentionally as part of that series)?
-- An author puts out a trilogy. One of those books is later republished, but without any reference to the trilogy. Indeed, imagine that everyone has forgotten that there was a trilogy, and the book was originally written as part of a trilogy. Does the *work* cease to be part of the trilogy because this edition was not released as part of or with reference to the trilogy?

If A (whether it was an author or publisher who created it) does not in itself matter or make the difference, then what is it that distinguishes these two cases (for those who are arguing that they're not the same)? What is it that makes the work stay part of the series (in LT definition of series) in one but not the other? What is it that makes the fact that an edition was released separately matter in one case but not the other?

(edited for clarity)

I'm thinking about that, and may not come up with an answer, but I have a question:
A publisher publishes a chronological set of histories, specifically commissioned for its series on the History of XYZ. One of those histories is later republished, without reference to the original series.
If you looked at the whole series of books sitting on a shelf, and one of the volumes did not match because the original edition was missing and its gap was filled with the republished edition, would it belong to the series?

If it's the same work, i.e. the content is identical, then yes. (May not be pretty, but that's a different thing!)

Your questions are good for defining a series, and thinking about what a series is, but aren't necessary relevant to the question of Series vs. Publisher Series.

The LibraryThing way to look at it isn't "what is the definition of a series?", but "does this work belong to the series?".

I was able to immediately answer your two questions, but it took a while to figure out why my answers were what they were.

A publisher publishes a chronological set of histories, specifically commissioned for its series on the History of XYZ. One of those histories is later republished, without reference to the original series. Does that history as a *work* cease to be part of that series because this particular edition makes no reference to that series?
That reprinted edition on its own is not part of the series, because the intentional creation was the set of books. The "work" in the creative sense is perhaps still part of the series, but that wouldn't be relevant to someone who owns only the reprinted edition, because there's no reference to the reset of the series. Someone who owned the whole original series except for the one reprinted edition would likely consider it to be part of the series, but probably wouldn't really be happy about it (see 118/119). The creation is not the "history of XYZ" (there may be many more books about the history of XYZ that are not part of the series), rather the creation is the publisher's specially commissioned set of books on the subject. Taking a chunk of that content and republishing it not as part of the specially commissioned set means it's not part of the specially commissioned set.

An author puts out a trilogy. One of those books is later republished, but without any reference to the trilogy. Does the *work* cease to be part of the trilogy because this edition was not released as part of or with reference to the trilogy?
No, because the intentional creation was the content -- the story -- of which this story is still a part.
Indeed, imagine that everyone has forgotten that there was a trilogy, and the book was originally written as part of a trilogy.
In that case, the question could not be asked. If you can ask the question of any specific work, then the answer is that it is still part of the trilogy.

Caveats: I don't like my answers, they are not consistent. I am making assumptions about the intention of the publisher, author, and owners of the hypothetical works.

The Hobbit will always be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings, even if you've never heard of the trilogy. Greyhound published by GRA is not part of the series of books published by PetSmart. I can chase the ideas around in my head for hours, but I always end up agreeing with both of those statements.

Hmmm... If GRA republished all (or even just a significant portion) of the PetSmart series, with the intention of those books being a series of re-issues of the PetSmart series, then GRA's Greyhound would be part of the PetSmart series, except that it probably wouldn't be the PetSmart series any more (unless GRA also published them under that name).

>116 r.orrison:

Strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In any event I'm not moving the series at least until I have somewhere to put my series description with the detailed catalog of volumes not found in LT.

Also, Tim entered CK for at least one book in this series (volume 225). Can I take that as an endorsement? Though perhaps he didn't know about the reprint volumes.

Strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater
That's why I said it used to be unfortunate. Now, though, it's not throwing out anything. It's moving the baby from the sink into the bathtub.

Tim entered CK for at least one book in this series
There's only one ISBN listed for that one, so it only exists as part of the series; there's never been any contention that such works could be listed as part of a Series. And was that before or after the creation of Publisher Series?

Can you find a case where, since the creation of Publisher Series, Tim has set the Series field on a work where editions exist that are not part of the series?

RE the University of Oklahoma's Civilization of the American Indian series:

I agree with others who've said that this should ultimately go in publisher's series, IF there are editions that also exist outside this series, and IF it does indeed republish works that were previously published before.

What I would do in this case is work slowly. I'd *copy,* but not yet move, all the information to the publishers series field. So, I'd duplicate the information, but not yet delete it from series. I'd also start adding the missing works to the publishers' series - the works that couldn't legitimately have this series title in the Series field, but can legitimately have it in the Publisher Series field. I'd keep the note in Series Description, but I'd also put a link to the new Publisher's Series page, for cross reference. I'd also maybe add a note to the description, saying that it's in the process of being copied over, and please don't delete anything from Series until you're finished and/or until there's a description box on the publisher series page.

No, because the intentional creation was the content -- the story -- of which this story is still a part.

Ok, but with the historical example, the intentional creation was the chronological history (story, narrative) of XYZ which the part of the (hi)story in that particular volume was still a part.

125> As someone else posted above, there are lots of histories of XYZ that were never part of the series. There has to something tying the work specifically to the series so that someone aware of the series reading the words of the book know that it must be part of the series. The intention of the publisher isn't good enough.

with the historical example, the intentional creation was the chronological history

There we differ. The way that I interperet sets like that is that the creation of the publisher is the set of specific editions of books, as I tried to describe in message 120 in the part before your quote. Sure, they may have commissioned an author or authors to write them, but they aren't creating the history, they're creating the set.

92>

The GRA Greyhound is just another printing of the Petsmart Greyhound. It is the Same.Work.

Exactly!

Now will you help me recombine all those Junior Deluxe Editions that you separated out before you understood this key point?

125-126 - Maybe, but the case I'm imagining is one with a thematic coherence. The publishers decide to put out a series of histories of some particular thing. There's a common focus and set of questions that delimit that thing, which is implicit to the kinds of books they want in the series. The series - the full story - wouldn't be complete without that one book on the 18th century, or whatever.

They're intentionally deciding that these specific works should be written as part of a series, which overall focuses on X topic. I don't see the set/history distinction as important here. They intend that the overall set of books on the history of XYZ should have a book on the history of XYZ in 19th century France, because that period was crucial to the modern development of XYZ.

125 - I could read a work of fiction that was conceived as, and is, part of a series, yet never be aware, when reading the book, that it was part of a series. Does that make the work of fiction any less part of the series? If the one of the Chronicles of Narnia were published by a different publisher than usual, and it had no markings on it indicating that it was part of a series, or where in the series it fell, does that make it any less part of the original series?

I could read a work of fiction that was conceived as, and is, part of a series, yet never be aware, when reading the book, that it was part of a series.

That's why I added that the reader is aware of the series. So, yet, I believe that someone who knew about the Narnia series read another Narnia book that he would connect it to the series. Can the same be said about a work on 19th century France that is part of a series.

ETA: You probably couldn't read a For Dummies book w/o realizing what series it belongs to, even if the cover and title pages had been ripped off.

129 - No, I'm thinking about if someone picked up, say The Magician and his Nephew in a version that made no reference on the cover or paratexts to the rest of the book, and just read it through, and was unaware of the existence of the series. If such an edition were to exist, published on its own, separate from the series, would that invalidate Chronicles of Narnia as an LT series, or mean that The Magician and his Nephew could no longer be listed as part of the series?

Oh - ok, I'm misreading your original post slightly. Yes, so that's where the point about thematic coherence comes in. If I find a copy of The 18th century history of XYZ published by Harper Collins, and I'm aware that there's a history of XYZ published by Oxford University Press, I'm probably, yes, going to realize that this was part of it. That depends on how specific the XYZ part is, of course. Here's a concrete example: http://www.librarything.com/work/1029730
And yes, I agree, that someone reading a dummies book would probably realize that it was a dummies book even if it were published by someone else, or was missing its cover and title page. Nonetheless, I do think that intention is important here: the publisher in the history series case and the dummies case, intentionally created a series of books on a particular theme or with a certain coherence of topic. The thematic coherence is a result of the editor's or publisher's intention in commissioning these books and packaging them together as a series.

"No, because the intentional creation was the content -- the story -- of which this story is still a part."

131 So are you saying the intentional creation is the content in one case, but not content in the other? The publishers didn't bring any old set of books together with no care for content, they commissioned a set of books giving a chronological history of a particular topic. The coherence and definition of the series in that case fundamentally has to do has to do with the books' content (as well as their order).

As I said in 120, in one case the creation is the set, in the other it is the content. In the first case, separate one work from the set and it is no longer part of the set; in the other the content is always part of the whole. At least, that is how I see it.

I'm still not quite getting your distinction between set and content. The set is a set because of its content.

No, the set is a set because they were published at the same time (or perhaps sequentially) and in the same format (binding, layout, "a common focus and set of questions ... implicit to the kinds of books they want in the series"), and yes, with thematically related content (a history of XYZ, types of dogs, famous books), but it's not the content that defines the set. In your example of a publisher that commissioned a series on the history of XYZ -- is there any chance that they would publish them in completely different bindings, and sizes, and layouts? Not likely, because as much as the content those are things that define the set.

Edited to add: If I took the text of Cruising Grounds from The Time-Life Library of Boating, drew my own sketches to illustrate it, and reprinted it myself in a mass-market format paperback, it would not be part of The Time-Life Library of Boating.

I don't really think the physical form matters. They might change the series look or size halfway through. I've seen that happen with both fiction and nonfiction.

See, I think that if the book Cruising Grounds were originally, intentionally written as part of the Time Life Library of Boating, then it remains a work that was - in its very inception and idea - part of that series. If you added your own sketches within the book to illustrate it, then it's possible it would no longer be considered the same work for LT purposes anyway, which wouldn't effect the original work itself or its status in the series.

I think we've found two points where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think that for publisher series, the physical form is very important. If they do change the look or size, they'll stick with the new look or size for a while, they won't change it for every work as it's published. They'll probably also reprint the older ones in the new format.

Cruising Grounds published by someone else with different illustrations* in a different format would still be the same work in LT terms, but -- in my opinion -- it would not be a part of the set. It might be interesting in its own right, it could have exactly the same words in it in the same order, but I wouldn't want it on my shelf next to the others.

* Illustrations don't define the work: "The deluxe, illustrated edition of Alice in Wonderland is the same work as a humble Dover edition" (Concepts)

138>

Well, two things.

One, I have other things to do.

Two, while I'm in the authors cleaning up, I'm fixing other things as well; most of them need a lot of work.

I agree they're a Publisher Series, and an excellent example of one.

138> I'm fine with you doing the recombine on the JDEs. I just wonder what's taking you so long.

This is getting ridiculous. Do you have any interest in actually working together as part of a community here?

I juist found that a Series, which I think it would be an interesting test case, has been moved to a Publisher Series. Canongate's The Myths is commisioned, has been published by other publishers (as translations, another issue not touched much upon), and I think that is recognizeable as a series under the "aware reader recognition" test above. I think it's clear that if it is a series, it's not because of things like binding, but because
1. It has been comissioned as a series.
2. Every book (except the introductory volume) has a common idea of an reinterpreted myth behind it.
3. Both of the above.

So, is this a Series, or a Publisher Series? Would it have made a difference if the authors would have come together and agreed on writing the books, instead of being contacted by the publisher?

From the Common Knowledge Help Page: "Never create publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question."
From your message 143: "has been published by other publishers"
Not a Series, but a perfectly fine Publisher Series and there's nothing wrong with that.

Edit to add:

It has always bothered some people that the definition of the Common Knowledge Series field has excluded such republished publishers' series. For this reason, Tim created the Publisher Series field so that there would be a place to record that information, and everyone could be happy.

"Never create publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question."

One thing that has always troubled me about that one: does it refer to a monopoly for the language (area) for which the CK is entered, or must it be a worldwide monopoly?

So, Nancy Drew is also a publisher series? Because that has also been published by more than one company. Or the canonical example "for dummies", which also has been translated and republished by other companies.

The question was not whether Publisher Series should be moved, but whether this is a Publisher Series and why (it was not considered to be one before that field was created). Does really the fact that it has been commisioned always, always mean that it should be considered a Publisher Series, allowable into the Series field only under special circumstances?

145: Myself, I try to put as little of my own interpretation into it as possible. Some people add "original publication of the" before "works". You could add "in the language of the site where the data is entered" at the end if you want. I don't know, it works for me the way it's written. If there was any doubt, I'd move it to Publisher Series. Many people on this thread seem quite opposed to doing that for some reason. The definition of what goes into the field isn't a value judgment about different types of series, it's just documentation of the software. "Series" isn't a better field than "Publisher Series", it's not more important, it just has a different purpose. (The implementation of Publisher Series isn't as complete as Series, but that's a topic for RSI.)

> 146: No, in fact I believe the opposite. If the books have been commissioned the publisher will have a monopoly - series.

(Not saying there can't be exceptions).

> 147: I can see it your way too, no worries.

Myself, I've always taken the "For Dummies" example as a clue. That series has been translated all over, and as such published by many other publishing houses. In Dutch it becomes a "Voor Dummies" series, in French "Pour les Nuls", etc. And it isn't necessarily so that all of the "For Dummies" series have been translated into those languages (yet), so you also can't maintain that those series have an 100% overlap.

#146

On Nancy Drew.

No - because true monopoly over the "works" in question. is referring to series put out by a single publisher (called publisher series in that text).

As to Dummies books then I believe it the monopoly is "language localised". So there is only one publisher of Dummies books in English.

Basically my take on the situation is that for these Publisher Series to qualify as a LT Series should be specially commissioned (as a series which is often shown by branding, physical form etc) and be unique to that publisher (no reprints in the appropriate language localisation).

Specially commissioned - this is to catch people entering all books that a particular imprint (or even publisher) print. Publisher Series (and LT Series) are not designed to capture this.

Uniqueness. For me one volume being reprinted is enough.

Take for example this gedankenexperiment. Publisher P1 publishes a LT series of books B1 - B10. At the moment it is an intentional creation and they have a monopoly. It qualifies as a LT Series (it is also a Publisher Series - but I doubt people will enter it in both). Book B2 is then republished by publisher P2. Should the LT Series be moved to a Publisher Series? Later book B3 is republished by P2, then B4 and so on. At what point do you feel that the series is not a LT Series? If you still feel it should be a series does it matter if then even later B2 is republished by P3 and then P4? For me, as soon as P2 publishes B2 then the LT Series should be moved to Publisher Series. If you believe otherwise you have to come up with a rationale to explain when and why you would move the LT series entries to Publisher Series.

#89: If it's a series, it's a series, no matter what you want printed on it. Instead of calling it the PetSmart series, we can call it the jfalkdsjfl;sajdf;'f;s series--does that help?

#107: If it turns out the PetSmart series was all written by Joanne Smith under pseudonyms, who believed them to be a series, would that make them a series? That the easiest and most familiar name for a series includes a publisher name does not change the essential essence of a series.

Here's another reason that I think the Publisher Series field should be moved to be right after Series. With it at the end of the list it does feel like you're relegating series that don't make the cut to the dungeon.

About The Myths:

When you say they've been republished, do you mean that the series as a whole has been republished (e.g. a Swedish version of the series, a French version, etc.? Or do you mean that individual volumes have been republished outside of the series?

Republishing the whole series in another language isn't enough IMHO to "break" the LT definition of series.

However, this does seem like a borderline case that I probably would have put in publisher series. There's a common theme there, but it doesn't have quite the same coherence as, say, a Petsmart series, Dummies, or even a chronological history of a particular subject, where each volume's content is probably also organized in a way that is common to the series. The works in the Myth series can stand on their own a bit more; there's no common method or format of reinterpretation, but rather each author is taking his or her own approach.

I'm not sure exactly how they have been published in different countries, but at least the Swedish books seems to all be published by the same publisher. Don't know to what degree they say that "this is part of The Myths-series" either.

Still, my question remains: this was apparently OK as a series before we had Publisher series, but not now. I think that is a bit strange, since no wordings for what is what has changed.

How do you know it was OK as a Series? Just because it wasn't removed, or was there some discussion in which it was agreed that it was? There are quite a few things that are being moved from the Series field to the Publisher Series field because that's where they belong, and before we had the Publisher Series there wasn't a right place for them.

100 Essential New England Books isn't really an award, and if we get a list feature it will probably get moved there, because the fact that it's listed as an award now doesn't mean it is an award.

Well, I've not seen any discussion, no. But it was moved two days ago, after having been up for almost three years, so it does not seem likely that someone stumbled upon it only now and decided that it was a Publisher Series.

And the analogy is bad. There are in fact nothing that says that such lists should not be considered awards that I've seen (perhaps on the Wiki).

Anyway, what I wanted to ask was why this is judged by Publisher Series standards. Whether translations break the monopoly is also an interesting issue, but that is an aside (but if they don't, it can apparently be moved back). So, is there any fundamental difference between The Myths and Nancy Drew, or should we just sit and guess when commissioned work should be automatically be a Series and when we should look on the publication history?

And as for the argument that "Publisher series" being just a different field that has been presented. Of course it is not. I'm far, far more interested in seeing all the Discworld books than every book released as a Penguin classic. A book is usually part of only one or two series, and those are going to be much more relevant information to check in most cases, and unless an edition layer is developed, Publisher Series pages are going to be cluttered. Further, books from the same series are sometimes grouped. That's not going to happen for Publisher Series. There are of course Publisher series that are going to be of interest as well, but they are going to require much more work to find.

So, is there any fundamental difference between The Myths and Nancy Drew, or should we just sit and guess when commissioned work should be automatically be a Series and when we should look on the publication history?

Nancy Drew is a series because all the books have the character Nancy Drew in them. The myths is a publisher series because a publisher decided they should be together. Two totally different criteria.

In the one case, a publisher decided to commission a set of books all with the same character in them (that's pretty much what happened with Nancy Drew, since different authors actually wrote them, all under the same pen name, to the same editorial standards and formula set by the Stratemeyer publishing company).

In the other case, a publisher decided to commission a set of books all on the common theme of myths reinterpreted.

In neither case did the books exist before the series was created. Both sets of books are the result of a deliberate intention on the part of the publisher to have that set of books created/written. (ETA this means the works would not exist without that initial intention by the publisher.)

ETA Technically Stratemeyer is a book packaging company rather than a publisher; it's like an outsourcing company for a part of the publishing process.

157: But it was moved two days ago, after having been up for almost three years
You do realize that during those three years the only alternatives were leave it alone or delete it, right? It took less than a week from the creation of the Publisher Series field for someone to identify the series and move all the entries from Series to Publisher Series.

it does not seem likely that someone stumbled upon it only now and decided that it was a Publisher Series
No, it sounds like they've been patiently waiting a long time to have some place more appropriate than Series to put a Publisher Series.

>150 andyl:
If you believe otherwise you have to come up with a rationale to explain when and why you would move the LT series entries to Publisher Series.

My answer, though it seems not to be very popular, is never; once a series, always a series. I think I made my case about as well as possible above, but here's one more run at it and then I'll wait to see what happens.

I think the series of original publication is especially interesting. I think it says something about the work and how that work was created, not just something about the edition. How much it says is a matter of degree. And since there's no bright line in the middle I prefer to simply say if they stuck a series label on it when it was first published, it's in that series.

To me it's rather like the original publication date. My copy of Vanity Fair was printed in 1986. As a physical object it doesn't have anything to do with the year 1847. It's certainly not over 160 years old. But the original publication date of the work is still interesting. It might also be interesting to know all of the other dates the work has been reprinted. Some works have seen thousands of printings, some only one. But all those dates are not as interesting as the original date. In a similar way all of the times a work has been selected for a reprint series is interesting, but not as interesting as the original series that to some degree shaped the work's content.

>147 r.orrison:
"Series" isn't a better field than "Publisher Series", it's not more important, it just has a different purpose. (The implementation of Publisher Series isn't as complete as Series, but that's a topic for RSI.)

First, the purpose of the fields is precisely what's being debated. Second, the prominence with which the information in the series field is displayed will remain different and this is, I think, the key bone of contention. Third, I'm far less interested in creating a tidy classificatory scheme than in recording and displaying information in a way that is most useful and interesting even though there will never be complete agreement on what that means.

159> In neither case did the books exist before the series was created. Both sets of books are the result of a deliberate intention on the part of the publisher to have that set of books created/written.

I think there is a difference of specificity. If I were to run across a book with a main character named Nancy Drew who solved mysteries then I would have little trouble placing it in the Nancy Drew series. But if picked up a book about a myth that was reinterpreted then, even if I were familiar with the series, I doubt I'd be able to say with any certainty if that book belonged to it.

I just see fiction series and non-fiction series as two nearly completely different things.

>160 r.orrison:
So what? If it was a Publisher series before, it should have been removed (like many other wrong entries has been). Not kept around to be moved into a possible future field.

>162 jjwilson61:
The Myth series is fiction (well, except for the introductory volume). The books seem to have about as much in common as for example the Waverly novels, which last time I check, was a Series.

So back to trying to make this a bit more simple. Based on the 'Never create publisher series (in the SERIES field), unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question' test, some of the posts above seem to argue that the test doesn't make sense because, for example, the Nancy Drew series would fail it. But surely that ignores the first part of that statement - "Publisher Series" - which seems to imply that this test does not apply to "author" series.

IMHO, determining whether or not something is a series v publisher series should involve the following process:

1. Is it a 'series' of any sort? Apply the following test: A good rule of thumb is that series have a conventional name and are intentional creations, on the part of the author or publisher. If yes, continue to 2. If no, then no entry should be made in EITHER CK field.

2. Whose series is it - author or the publisher? Lord of the Rings, Nancy Drew, James Bond (although different authors, the authors clearly intended these to be part of the series - also applies to Star Wars) and A Wrinkle in Time (not positive on that last one?) is an author series, Dummies is the intention of the publisher. If author, series is an LT Series - if Publisher, continue to 3.

3. Apply the publisher series test: 'Never create publisher series (in the SERIES field), unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question'. Eg - are there are ANY editions of the work (reprint or otherwise) that could reasonably be described as not part of the publisher's series? If Yes, series is an LT Publisher Series (seems to apply to the PetSmart/GRA Greyhound book being discussed above). If no, series is an LT Series.

Not sure how this would apply to the Non fiction discussed above.

Comments?

I don't see how Nancy Drew (or similar series) is any more an intention of the author than For Dummies: Edward Stratemeyer created the character, but he did not write the books himself.

The reason question number 2 exists is simply to determine whether question 3 applies.

The series of Junior Deluxe Editions was clearly an intentional creation on the part of the publisher, so it passes number 1. According to number two, we move on to number 3. There are editions of the various works that aren't part of the series, so the series is a Publisher Series. No problem.

Nancy Drew was clearly an intentional creation on the part of someone, either publisher or author whatever, so it passes number 1. According to number two, we should perhaps consider number 3. All editions of all works in the series will be part of the series, so the series is a Series. No problem.

As far as the monopoly phrase goes, regardless of what you believe, the line in the CK Help, referring to the Series field is:

Never create publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question.

It is not "Never create publisher series, unless the publisher had a true monopoly over the "works" in question when that publisher was publishing them."

You are right that JDE was created a series, and it will always be a series. But it's not appropriate for the Series field. It is, of course, entirely appropriate and indeed intended that such series should be recorded in the Publisher Series field.

Why is it not appropriate for the Series field? Because some people will have copies of those works that are not part of the series. It's wrong to say that they are. It's not wrong to say that those works were at some time published as part of a Publisher Series.

165: (In my view only) Nancy Drew is an author series (or perhaps more correctly, there are multiple Nancy Drew series) as each of the authors clearly intended for them to be part of the Nancy Drew story (in fact, as far as I know (nearly?) all were published under the same pseudonym). However, see my suggested second test below.

166: Why does it matter if it's an author/publisher series? Because the 'monopoly' test (as it is written in the wiki) only applies to publisher (created) series. Yes, it says publisher series in the wiki, but it said that before the 'publisher series' CK existed. You could argue for a different definition of how to tell if something is not a publisher series. I'm all ears - but in some cases I think some people here are deliberately making things more difficult than they need to be. What about as a second test: is there an interrelationship with the other 'works' in the series? If yes = LT Series, if no go to step 3.

I believe monopoly applies to the period of time when the series is being published

And many others don't. On what basis do you state that belief? The guidelines we've been given say: 'unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question' - that's pretty unequivocal.

For what it's worth, I think the Dummies series applying the methodology in 164 should be entered in the LT Series - Dummies has a monopoly on those books. Clearly there would be a number of other series put together by publishers that would 'pass' all three tests. If the comments regarding that 'some people think if it is created by a publisher it must not be a Regular Series' I'm not sure how you got that from my post? Step 3 clearly says SOME publisher series would be regular LT Series.

What I don't understand is why some people seem to have such a problem with their series showing in Publisher Series v CK Series. I understand that at the moment there is no column in your catalogue for it - Tim has said he'll get one added - other than that, what is the the issue? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, I genuinely want to understand why this is such a problem.

Are you able to see how it is irritating for others that have a reprint that is NOT part of the series (particularly where there is no relationship with other books in the series) to be told their book is part of the series?

Finally, are you able to suggest, based on your beliefs above, a simple way to determine what is an LT Series v what is an LT Publisher Series?

I think we could leave out question 2 and simplify question 3:

1. Is it a 'series' of any sort? Apply the following test: A good rule of thumb is that series have a conventional name and are intentional creations, on the part of the author or publisher. If yes, continue to 2. If no, then no entry should be made in EITHER CK field.

2. Are there are ANY editions of the work (reprint or otherwise) that could reasonably be described as not part of the series? If Yes, series is an LT Publisher Series (seems to apply to the PetSmart/GRA Greyhound book being discussed above). If no, series is an LT Series.

The real crux of the matter is whether editions exist that are not part of the series. Will everyone who owns an edition of the work agree that his book is part of the series? Then goes in the Series field. If some people have editions of the work that aren't part of the series, then the work as a whole is not part of the Series, and it goes in the Publisher Series field.

Of course, we'll probably never be able to come to an agreement of whether a reasonable person would consider the GRA Greyhound book to be part of the PetSmart series.

#161

Sure it if was originally published as part of a series that is interesting information. Hopefully we will have a description field for publisher series where that fact can be recorded. Of course that still isn't a first order fact - which I think is what you want. I don't think it is interesting enough to enough people for enough books to drastically rewrite the rules for the LT Series field.

Currently people know that when they see an entry in Series they know it applies to their edition. Changing that ingrained knowledge and expectation will be hard. It might be better to somehow have better CK so that a publisher series can be designated as the series of original publication - in a way which is better than a mere comment.

the Publisher Series page is nothing more than a list of the titles that WERE part of the JDEs, but with covers, and counts, and members who share, and blahblahblah of every other book

This is exactly WHY it's not a regular series.

It is USELESS;

That depends what you're trying to use it for. Don't get me wrong: I would love to have gotten some sort of editions level, so we could have better Publisher Series. But it looks like we're not going to get them.

Just curious, what are ULTBs?

Re 172/174:
I think you confused a number of people when, in message 166, you said "We understand that a series like Junior Deluxe Editions can never pass question one."

176:
Still just curious... in what sense is that a series of any sort? (Restraining the conniptions until I understand the situation.)

Ok. I'm happy to leave it as a demonstration of how a List field could work, and an exploration of the limitations of that implementation.

It would be easy for Tim to add a List field, that works exactly like Publisher Series, and it would probably satisfy as many people as Publisher Series does. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Are you able to see how it is irritating for others that have a reprint that is NOT part of the series (particularly where there is no relationship with other books in the series) to be told their book is part of the series?

What I don't get is why it would be any less irritation just because it's now in a field that's exactly the same (or will be once Tim adds a column and a stat page) except that the name of the field has the word Publisher prepended to it.

Because the Publisher Series field means something different. Just like it would be irritating to see the author's date of birth in date of death field - after all, the two fields are exactly the same, except for one word in the name of the field.

But I don't see anything intrinsic in the word publisher that means it applies to the edition and not the work, and least not that the average user is going to get intuitively.

>169 TineOliver:
What I don't understand is why some people seem to have such a problem with their series showing in Publisher Series v CK Series.

1. There are many, many Publisher Series, but a book usually only belongs to a very small number of ordinary Series. That a book is part of a Series is usually a much stronger characteristic than it being part of a Publisher Series.

2. While there could easily be a column in the ordinary catalog for Publisher Series, there are other places where displaying Series information is appropriate but Publisher Series is not, like just after the title on the Main page for the individual book.

So, even though it might not be intended as a value judgment to transform one set of series to the other, it does (and always will) mean a difference in what features is available. Then there are of course also arguments that applies right now, but might not apply in a future where a editions layer has been introduced.

184:
No, it's not clear. Neither is Blurber. Have you got a better suggestion for a short label for the field that means "Series of which only some editions of the works are a part"? A better descriptive text when editing would help a lot, though too many people don't read them anyway.

182/183/184> I think jjwilson61 has a point, though. If you have both the Series and Publisher Series fields turned on, and you have a book that's in a Publisher Series that was not actually in the PS (like one of those Greek plays that were reprinted), that data shown will not apply to your copy.

As for why it doesn't bother a lot of people as much, I think it's due to priorities and books in the catalog. One thing this discussion has shown me is that there are some people who are really into publisher series. I may be making an assumption, but I think a lot of us arguing for more things to go into the Publisher Series field are likely to not have that field turned on in our catalog view (when it's supported). Therefore the answer to jjwilson61's question is that it doesn't bother me in that field because I probably won't see it.

To me, I'm much more interested in the Series field for linking books based on content (characters, sequels, books set in the same creative universe, etc.) So most of the time I wouldn't even see the Publisher Series field. I tend to like the field not for what it adds to my catalog, but what it subtracts. I want it to remove those pieces of data from the Series field, as its presence there makes the Series field less useful for my content-based purposes.

Now, don't take the above as me arguing that LT should cater to only my needs. I'm just trying to explain where I think some of the arguments on the one side come from to try to help better understand why people want it one way versus the other. I see that there's people who are on the other side who really rely on that piece of data, whether it be because of interest in reading these entire series, or just in terms of collecting a full set. I wish we could both be equally pleased, but I think it's one of those things where you can't please all the people. And it doesn't do any good to just tell the other side "well, don't want things that way!"

So this goes back to the "second-class" status of the Publisher Series field; will it likely eventually get a column in the catalog? I think so. But will it wind up being at the top of a work page under author like Series is? - probably not. That IS a bit second-class, I think. There are other issues about showing up in stats and about whether the two fields should be neighbors on the CK form.

This is one of those cases where I really wish Tim wasn't against configuration so much (even though as a programmer, I understand that configuration=work, work, work). It would be awesome if people could choose on their own whether to put any combination of Series or Publisher Series under the author line, in their stats, etc. just like they would be able to choose whether to have the column in their catalog.

Finally, I would support an Original Publisher Series field to capture the "third type" of series information that has been talked about multiple times above. It would bring up its own arguments, but I think it would be worth it for the people who have a real need of it.

I think at this point, we're all just going around in circles because we subconsciously want to read the definitions as what we want them to be so the rules say what we want them to say (within limits). I believe this issue will only be solved by Tim adding more fields/configurability, or by him decreeing how the various cases should be handled.

Even though the following where addressed to Collectorator I'd like to give a crack at them.

Are you able to see how it is irritating for others that have a reprint that is NOT part of the series (particularly where there is no relationship with other books in the series) to be told their book is part of the series?

I suppose, but LT displays a lot of data that might not be of interest to all members. There's that other thread where a user doesn't like seeing the total members number because that number doesn't apply to her book (edition), only to the work (this fuzzy concept that doesn't really exist). Why is that unreasonable if it is reasonable to say that you don't want to see the series of original publication because it doesn't apply to your edition?

Can you see how the series of original publication can be interesting regardless of republication and how these issues are not totally cut and dried? A few examples:

Oxford's series Very Short Introductions includes republications of books published in earlier Oxford series. I actually agree it should be moved to Publishers' Series. Note though that it's not an issue of publisher monopoly because they are all Oxford editions. But what about the original series? Take the book Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer. This book is not really a very good general intro to Marx because it focuses exclusively in Marx as a philosopher. To some extent this was the choice of the author, but it also relates to the original publication series. Oxford tells me on the publication page that this book was first released in 1980. They don't tell me that it was first released in the Past Masters Series, a set of books on "great thinkers." But this is quite interesting information as it explains the focus of the book. This is just the kind on information I'd like prominently displayed in LT.

Also, there are times when the series info is retained even when the publisher changes. Eric Foner's classic Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution was originally published by Harper and Row for the New American Nation series. The paperback was published by their imprint Perennial Classics. There was also an edition from Peter Smith Publishers. From what I can tell on google books all bear New American Nation series designation. But there's no publisher monopoly so New American Nation is not a series anymore?

One more: Somewhere (I think a different thread) I noted that some of the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science volumes were reprinted in the Arno American Labor series. I've now checked, and Arno included the Johns Hopkins series information in their editions. It's not on the cover, but it is in the book. Is this true of every publisher that reprinted one of these books? I have neither the time nor resources to check.

Finally, are you able to suggest, based on your beliefs above, a simple way to determine what is an LT Series v what is an LT Publisher Series?

Yes. LT series is for series designated at the time of original publication. LT publisher series is for series designated on reprinting.

There remains the problem of series that include both original works and reprints. I suggest these be handled case by case on the basis of greatest utility as understood by the people who care about these particular books.

***edited because my touchstone were getting messed up***