This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1myshelves
I just did a bunch of separating for books titled "Three Gothic Novels." They were lumped together with Horace Walpole as author, but he is the author of only 1 of the 3 novels.
On top of that, there are 2 different works. One contains The Castle of Otranto by Walpole, Vathek by William Beckford, and The vampyre, by John Polidori; while the other contains The Castle of Otranto, Vathek, and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
I got a bunch of them combined under the 2 different editors, but the majority are still under Walpole. *sigh*
On top of that, there are 2 different works. One contains The Castle of Otranto by Walpole, Vathek by William Beckford, and The vampyre, by John Polidori; while the other contains The Castle of Otranto, Vathek, and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
I got a bunch of them combined under the 2 different editors, but the majority are still under Walpole. *sigh*
2kathrynnd
This will be impossible to fix without breaking out different works by ISBN. For example, when I separated the largest clump (116 copies) of The Castle of Otranto to take a look at it, there were only two ISBN's listed, one, 155111304X, is for the combo book that includes Mysterious Mother. Hopeless!
BTW combining books by ISBN does not combine the authors, even though the titles show up on only one author page at the moment. When you click on any of these titles, all authors show for the work. Therefore, while it was useful to separate the books by the two different editors from Walpole in order to get to the different work ISBNs, once so separated, the books with the same ISBN ( and same contents) can go together again, regardless of the name in the author field.
BTW combining books by ISBN does not combine the authors, even though the titles show up on only one author page at the moment. When you click on any of these titles, all authors show for the work. Therefore, while it was useful to separate the books by the two different editors from Walpole in order to get to the different work ISBNs, once so separated, the books with the same ISBN ( and same contents) can go together again, regardless of the name in the author field.
3myshelves
I broke them out by editor or content. The ones with Frankenstein have one editor, the ones with The Vampyre another.
I'm stopping now. I don't have 3 gothic novels by Walpole; I have only one. :-) I can't see any sense to listing an anthology under one included author. Just because Amazon may do it. . . .
I just hope no one hunts around and combines the 2 editions with different content again. At the cocktail party, I want to talk to the Polidori people. Everyone has read Frankenstein. :-)
I'm stopping now. I don't have 3 gothic novels by Walpole; I have only one. :-) I can't see any sense to listing an anthology under one included author. Just because Amazon may do it. . . .
I just hope no one hunts around and combines the 2 editions with different content again. At the cocktail party, I want to talk to the Polidori people. Everyone has read Frankenstein. :-)
4kathrynnd
I don't see any sense in listing an anthology under an author, editor or compiler either, but people do.
The nevering system allows books with identical content to be combined together in a work despite what is put in the author field, thus the Polidori people who entered their copies of Three gothic novels as by 'various' can talk with the ones who entered theirs by a made up multiple author name, and so on. At least if all the Polidori people keep their copies together on the same page there will be less chance of the copies being mixed with copies of the different work held by the Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley people.
The nevering system allows books with identical content to be combined together in a work despite what is put in the author field, thus the Polidori people who entered their copies of Three gothic novels as by 'various' can talk with the ones who entered theirs by a made up multiple author name, and so on. At least if all the Polidori people keep their copies together on the same page there will be less chance of the copies being mixed with copies of the different work held by the Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley people.
5Ealhmund
>4 kathrynnd:
I assume you mean a multi-author anthology.
Anyway, for the purposes of keeping track of my library, I always use 'various' for multi-author anthologies. However, I can see why one would use one of the authors in the author field - just try to do any combining or separating on the author various. The number of works is so large that just loading the combining page takes forever.
I don't approve of that approach, and I still use 'various' and 'anonymous', as appropriate. But I do sympathize. Neither works well in tying LTers together based on the work. Either you get bogged down in the shear volume when trying to do any combine/separate maintenance, or you end up with a misleading author entry for the book.
As has been said by most combiners at one time or another, such problems can be solved by a multi-leveled system that can handle a primary author (in this case, 'various') and secondary authors (in this case, the author of each work in the anthology.
There is one other approach, with its own problems - An anthology is actually several works that a publisher decided to issue in one publication. But it's still several works. So, one could simply enter each work with its author and, possibly, the whole book with 'various' as the author. This connects one with owners of each of the works and keeps the authors straight. But, it does screw up the stats (but they are not real anyway, based on the various ways people use their catalogs). It doesn't help much for things like poetry or short story anthologies, though, just because of the shear number of entries and the doubtful application of the term 'work' to a single poem or short story.
I've talked too much already. Just my thoughts.
Os.
I assume you mean a multi-author anthology.
Anyway, for the purposes of keeping track of my library, I always use 'various' for multi-author anthologies. However, I can see why one would use one of the authors in the author field - just try to do any combining or separating on the author various. The number of works is so large that just loading the combining page takes forever.
I don't approve of that approach, and I still use 'various' and 'anonymous', as appropriate. But I do sympathize. Neither works well in tying LTers together based on the work. Either you get bogged down in the shear volume when trying to do any combine/separate maintenance, or you end up with a misleading author entry for the book.
As has been said by most combiners at one time or another, such problems can be solved by a multi-leveled system that can handle a primary author (in this case, 'various') and secondary authors (in this case, the author of each work in the anthology.
There is one other approach, with its own problems - An anthology is actually several works that a publisher decided to issue in one publication. But it's still several works. So, one could simply enter each work with its author and, possibly, the whole book with 'various' as the author. This connects one with owners of each of the works and keeps the authors straight. But, it does screw up the stats (but they are not real anyway, based on the various ways people use their catalogs). It doesn't help much for things like poetry or short story anthologies, though, just because of the shear number of entries and the doubtful application of the term 'work' to a single poem or short story.
I've talked too much already. Just my thoughts.
Os.
6myshelves
I do make separate manual entries, showing only title (with a parenthetical reference to the book containing the novel) and author. I also enter the book itself by way of the ISBN, so it can be combined --- and so I know where to find the novel in my collection. :-) I got started on this little project because my manual entry of the Walpole novel had been combined with "3 Gothic Novels by Walpole."
I've done this with books containing 2 or 3 novels, but haven't listed my hundreds of short story anthologies yet. I want to be able to list the contents, and to search my catalog by author to find the stories. (Maybe some day?)
Btw, I distinguish multi-author from single-author anthologies by tagging the latter "collection."
I see no harm in listing an anthology with the editor (clearly so labeled) in the LT author field. If the book predates ISBNs, there is more hope of it getting properly combined than if one puts nothing, or Various.
I've done this with books containing 2 or 3 novels, but haven't listed my hundreds of short story anthologies yet. I want to be able to list the contents, and to search my catalog by author to find the stories. (Maybe some day?)
Btw, I distinguish multi-author from single-author anthologies by tagging the latter "collection."
I see no harm in listing an anthology with the editor (clearly so labeled) in the LT author field. If the book predates ISBNs, there is more hope of it getting properly combined than if one puts nothing, or Various.
7jjwilson61
> 6, 7 If you add such a virtual book, please don't fill in the ISBN field (I think that any field, such as publication, that refers to a physical book would also be inappropriate).
8lampbane
I see no harm in listing an anthology with the editor (clearly so labeled) in the LT author field. If the book predates ISBNs, there is more hope of it getting properly combined than if one puts nothing, or Various.
Here here, I hate leaving empty forms (I have a few) or using the non-specific "various".
Here here, I hate leaving empty forms (I have a few) or using the non-specific "various".
10lorax
I list the editor (flagged as such) for anthologies because that's how I shelve them on my physical shelves -- like lampbane, I hate empty fields.
(This is anthologies of short stories, where the number of distinct works in a volume numbers in the tens, rather than omnibus editions of a few novels -- the only omnibi I actually own are single-author.)
"Various" is okay if no editor is listed, but always makes me remember the horrible time when some idiot combined Every. Single. Book. listed under "various" into a single work, and I want to stay as far away from that as possible!
(This is anthologies of short stories, where the number of distinct works in a volume numbers in the tens, rather than omnibus editions of a few novels -- the only omnibi I actually own are single-author.)
"Various" is okay if no editor is listed, but always makes me remember the horrible time when some idiot combined Every. Single. Book. listed under "various" into a single work, and I want to stay as far away from that as possible!
11DromJohn
I agree with LoC.
I contend that myshelves has separated incorrectly.
Single author entries should trump multiple author entries and "Various." The only entry worse than "Various" is a null entry.
Three Gothic Novels belongs on the Walpole page.
Beckford and Byron should be in the "other author" field, which hopefully LT will eventually add to their author pages.
BTW, one reason I'm high on the "50 top taggers By number of distinct tags (for Lilithcat)" while quite short of the Largest libraries is that I aggessively tag my 505s and 700s.
LC Control No.: 64016338
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Walpole, Horace, 1717-1797.
Main Title: The castle of Otranto, by Horace Walpole. Vathek, by William Beckford. The vampyre, by John Polidori. Three Gothic novels, and a fragment of a novel by Lord Byron. Edited by E. F. Bleiler.
Published/Created: New York, Dover Publications 1966
Description: xl, 291 p. 22 cm.
I contend that myshelves has separated incorrectly.
Single author entries should trump multiple author entries and "Various." The only entry worse than "Various" is a null entry.
Three Gothic Novels belongs on the Walpole page.
Beckford and Byron should be in the "other author" field, which hopefully LT will eventually add to their author pages.
BTW, one reason I'm high on the "50 top taggers By number of distinct tags (for Lilithcat)" while quite short of the Largest libraries is that I aggessively tag my 505s and 700s.
LC Control No.: 64016338
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Walpole, Horace, 1717-1797.
Main Title: The castle of Otranto, by Horace Walpole. Vathek, by William Beckford. The vampyre, by John Polidori. Three Gothic novels, and a fragment of a novel by Lord Byron. Edited by E. F. Bleiler.
Published/Created: New York, Dover Publications 1966
Description: xl, 291 p. 22 cm.
12myshelves
As far as I'm concerned, "multiple authors" of a "work" are co-authors of that work, not authors of separate works which happen to be printed in one book.
I don't know if the LT "works concept" is entirely compatible with the LoC notions on the subject. (The LT concepts page doesn't address this issue.) If I have this book, and someone else has each of the 3 works contained in it, we have NO social connection on LT. That isn't the idea, is it?
As I understand a "work," this book is not a "work" at all. It contains 3 "works" by different authors, crammed within the same covers for marketing purposes.
It makes no sense to me to treat the book as a "work" or to attribute it to any one of the 3 authors.
I don't know if the LT "works concept" is entirely compatible with the LoC notions on the subject. (The LT concepts page doesn't address this issue.) If I have this book, and someone else has each of the 3 works contained in it, we have NO social connection on LT. That isn't the idea, is it?
As I understand a "work," this book is not a "work" at all. It contains 3 "works" by different authors, crammed within the same covers for marketing purposes.
It makes no sense to me to treat the book as a "work" or to attribute it to any one of the 3 authors.
13Ealhmund
100% agreement with myshelves. As I've stated on various discussions - the confusion arises because LT invites us to catalog our 'books', but to combine works. We catalog for our personal organizational needs; we combine works for LTs social purposes. Many LTers treat 'books' and 'works' as the same thing (and LT sidebar guidance doesn't help much), but they clearly are not. Mark Twain never wrote a work called "Adventures: Treasure Island and Huckleberry Finn". He just wrote Huckleberry Finn. So if I have a volume by that title with these two works in it, I own both works, and I enter both works in LT. This is the only way that makes sense for social connections purposes, and the only way that passes the 'coctail party test' that Tim proposed. When I'm at the proverbial LT coctail party, I'm far more likely to enter into a conversation about "Huckleberry Finn" and Mark Twain than I am about "Huckleberry Finn" and "Treasure Island" published in one volume. And I probably wouldn't even read it as one book. I'd read Huckleberry Finn when I'm in the mood, but may not read Treasure Island for years, if ever.
'Various' as the author has its own problems, and I wish I hadn't entered my 2500+ works before realizing that, but it still makes no sense to me to make William Thomas Stokes-Davies the author of "Adventures: Treasure Island and Huckleberry Finn", simply because he wrote the introduction, selected the illustrations, and approved the book for publication. Mark Twain as the secondary author of "Huckleberry Finn"??
Gee, we really need multiple author fields that mean something, and a true 'work title' field separate from a true 'book title' field.
Os
'Various' as the author has its own problems, and I wish I hadn't entered my 2500+ works before realizing that, but it still makes no sense to me to make William Thomas Stokes-Davies the author of "Adventures: Treasure Island and Huckleberry Finn", simply because he wrote the introduction, selected the illustrations, and approved the book for publication. Mark Twain as the secondary author of "Huckleberry Finn"??
Gee, we really need multiple author fields that mean something, and a true 'work title' field separate from a true 'book title' field.
Os
14lampbane
Regardless of your dissatisfaction with the current fields, something has to be filled in them. These books with multiple authors end up in libraries and bookstores, so there has to be *some* way to shelve them, either by editor, or first author listed. It this optimal? No. But it works.
15myshelves
But the way they are shelved has nothing to do with the LT "works" concept, or combining.
16Anneli
>14 lampbane:
Libraries use different rules in shelving, but those I know, shelve books usually by the main entry. If there are more than three authors or the book is edited, the book is shelved by the title.
If you are interested how the main entry is decided, here is link to the Penn State University Libraries document:
Choice of Entry, Main and/or Added - X00, X10
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/cataloging/books/bpcr/choice.htm
Libraries use different rules in shelving, but those I know, shelve books usually by the main entry. If there are more than three authors or the book is edited, the book is shelved by the title.
If you are interested how the main entry is decided, here is link to the Penn State University Libraries document:
Choice of Entry, Main and/or Added - X00, X10
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/cataloging/books/bpcr/choice.htm
17Anneli
>15 myshelves:
myshelves is right. Shelving rules and main entries are for convenience - in many cases they don't tell us who has the moral rights to the work. There must be defined rules in libraries - otherwise it would be quite chaotic there. But if there are several works by several authors in one book and the first author is entered as the main entry, it certainly doesn't mean that the first author has principal responsibility or the moral rights for the whole book.
myshelves is right. Shelving rules and main entries are for convenience - in many cases they don't tell us who has the moral rights to the work. There must be defined rules in libraries - otherwise it would be quite chaotic there. But if there are several works by several authors in one book and the first author is entered as the main entry, it certainly doesn't mean that the first author has principal responsibility or the moral rights for the whole book.
18trollsdotter
>6 myshelves: I've done this with books containing 2 or 3 novels, but haven't listed my hundreds of short story anthologies yet. I want to be able to list the contents, and to search my catalog by author to find the stories. (Maybe some day?)
The new search system allows one to pull up information in the comments field. Just use "all:" at the beginning of the search. This is great because I have been entering the contents of anthologies, collections and such into the comments field, using the MARC record or typing them manually. So far WorldCat is my friend in saving me from typing forever.
The new search system allows one to pull up information in the comments field. Just use "all:" at the beginning of the search. This is great because I have been entering the contents of anthologies, collections and such into the comments field, using the MARC record or typing them manually. So far WorldCat is my friend in saving me from typing forever.
19myshelves
#18
I know that I can list contents in comments. But it isn't what I want. I want to be able to pull up an alpha list of all works (of whatever length) that I have by a particular author. (I could do that in the ancient DOS-based catalog/database that I designed 15 years ago.) I also want to be able to tag short stories.
I know that I can list contents in comments. But it isn't what I want. I want to be able to pull up an alpha list of all works (of whatever length) that I have by a particular author. (I could do that in the ancient DOS-based catalog/database that I designed 15 years ago.) I also want to be able to tag short stories.
20lampbane
It says enter under title, but also says to make a heading under the first author anyway:
Personal Author -- 100 Field
One Author
Enter a work by a single personal author under the heading for that author.
Two or Three Authors
When two or three personal authors are named on the source, enter the work under the first author. Make added entries for the other(s).
More Than Three Authors
When responsibility is shared among more than three persons and principal responsibility is not attributed to any, enter under title. Make an added entry under the heading for the first person named.
When principal responsibility can be attributed to three or fewer authors, enter the work under the heading appropriate to that number of authors.
Personal Author -- 100 Field
One Author
Enter a work by a single personal author under the heading for that author.
Two or Three Authors
When two or three personal authors are named on the source, enter the work under the first author. Make added entries for the other(s).
More Than Three Authors
When responsibility is shared among more than three persons and principal responsibility is not attributed to any, enter under title. Make an added entry under the heading for the first person named.
When principal responsibility can be attributed to three or fewer authors, enter the work under the heading appropriate to that number of authors.
21myshelves
#20
Still not relevant to the "works" concept or combining issues on LT.
I repeat what I see as the real question:
If I have this book (Three Gothic Novels), and someone else has each of the 3 works contained in it, we have NO social connection on LT. That isn't the idea, is it?
Still not relevant to the "works" concept or combining issues on LT.
I repeat what I see as the real question:
If I have this book (Three Gothic Novels), and someone else has each of the 3 works contained in it, we have NO social connection on LT. That isn't the idea, is it?
22trollsdotter
#19
I guess I'm not entirely certain what you mean by alpha list, unless you mean the author and title of the book/book in a collection/short story as the top line of your list. I can do the same in my home database (sadly neglected), but only because I used a related table to list all of the contents, series and subject information. In its own way it's like a combo of the tagging and contents fields in LT.
Back to LT, I can find all of the stories by an author I have using the "all:" feature, but I do have to look at the contents field to see which story is in the book.
Being able to tag individual short stories, rather than the work as a whole would be nice.
I guess I'm not entirely certain what you mean by alpha list, unless you mean the author and title of the book/book in a collection/short story as the top line of your list. I can do the same in my home database (sadly neglected), but only because I used a related table to list all of the contents, series and subject information. In its own way it's like a combo of the tagging and contents fields in LT.
Back to LT, I can find all of the stories by an author I have using the "all:" feature, but I do have to look at the contents field to see which story is in the book.
Being able to tag individual short stories, rather than the work as a whole would be nice.
23myshelves
#20
In that old database I listed short story titles, in quotes, and had another field for the anthology or collection in which they were contained. I used my existing tag (I didn't call it that) just as I did for books. I could generate a report for an author, showing all titles in alpha or other desired order, the "contained in" field, tags, and whatever else I wanted. A much-anthologized story might show 3 or 4 times in a row on the report. So for Heinlein I might get (making this up):
"All You Zombies", The Best of Robert Heinlein, time travel
Double Star, ____________, impersonation, Hugo
"Menace from Earth", The Green Hills of Earth, brat in space
and so on, for pages in this case. :-) I could also do a report of novels only, or stories only, by specifying whether or not the "contained in" field was empty.
Actually, my entry form ran to several pages, with fields for every conceivable bit of info about the book or story. I'd bought the darn computer just for the purpose. :-)
In that old database I listed short story titles, in quotes, and had another field for the anthology or collection in which they were contained. I used my existing tag (I didn't call it that) just as I did for books. I could generate a report for an author, showing all titles in alpha or other desired order, the "contained in" field, tags, and whatever else I wanted. A much-anthologized story might show 3 or 4 times in a row on the report. So for Heinlein I might get (making this up):
"All You Zombies", The Best of Robert Heinlein, time travel
Double Star, ____________, impersonation, Hugo
"Menace from Earth", The Green Hills of Earth, brat in space
and so on, for pages in this case. :-) I could also do a report of novels only, or stories only, by specifying whether or not the "contained in" field was empty.
Actually, my entry form ran to several pages, with fields for every conceivable bit of info about the book or story. I'd bought the darn computer just for the purpose. :-)
24trollsdotter
It sounds like a very detailed system. Even my db only allows me to "tag" to the book.
Are you really looking forward to the new proposed system and entering all that data? Unless they configure it to pull the contents info from the MARC file, which would be marvelous, it will be typing and copy/paste forever.
Are you really looking forward to the new proposed system and entering all that data? Unless they configure it to pull the contents info from the MARC file, which would be marvelous, it will be typing and copy/paste forever.
25Anneli
myselves: I think, too, that it should be possible to add the works in anthologies as works in LibraryThing. An antohology as a work doesn't make sense.
It would be nice if LibraryThing had all the features of "real" library catalog plus all the goodies of social cataloging, wouldn't it? In MARC format there are fields for added entries for authors, editors and titles. There is no limit to how many added entries you can make and if authors are in correct added entry fields, it is possible to search them by author. Or if titles of short stories in an anthology are in added entry fields you can search them by title. In many library systems it is also possible to link "baby records" (e.g. articles or short stories) to "mother record".
It would be nice if LibraryThing had all the features of "real" library catalog plus all the goodies of social cataloging, wouldn't it? In MARC format there are fields for added entries for authors, editors and titles. There is no limit to how many added entries you can make and if authors are in correct added entry fields, it is possible to search them by author. Or if titles of short stories in an anthology are in added entry fields you can search them by title. In many library systems it is also possible to link "baby records" (e.g. articles or short stories) to "mother record".
26myshelves
#24,
The majority of my anthologies are paperback, and predate ISBNs, so it would probably be typing forever. :-) I can't cut and paste; that antique DOS-based database program won't import to anything current.
The number of times I've torn my hair our trying to remember the title or author of a short story. . . . They need tagging. :-)
#25
I keep reading talk of a "megaworks" system for LT. Fingers crossed.
The majority of my anthologies are paperback, and predate ISBNs, so it would probably be typing forever. :-) I can't cut and paste; that antique DOS-based database program won't import to anything current.
The number of times I've torn my hair our trying to remember the title or author of a short story. . . . They need tagging. :-)
#25
I keep reading talk of a "megaworks" system for LT. Fingers crossed.
27prosfilaes
#25, the concept of anthologies as work does make sense in many cases. If you've read The 100 best love poems of all time, you'll have a particular view from the choices, the contrasts and commentary that you wouldn't have from reading the poems separately.
28DromJohn
Two different issues in this post.
Cataloging one's own copy of "Three Gothic Novels" as the three differen works of One contains "The Castle of Otranto" by Walpole, "Vathek" by William Beckford, and "The vampyre" by John Polidori and then combining them with other versions of the three works is cool value added cataloging.
Separating out the two different combinations with the title "Three Gothic Novels" is yoeman's work. Kudos.
Separating out other peoples cataloging the "Three Gothic Novels" as if it wasn't a complete "work" because of the amateurish dislike that Horace Walpole shouldn't be the primary author is at best sloppy paternalism.
Sigh.
Cataloging one's own copy of "Three Gothic Novels" as the three differen works of One contains "The Castle of Otranto" by Walpole, "Vathek" by William Beckford, and "The vampyre" by John Polidori and then combining them with other versions of the three works is cool value added cataloging.
Separating out the two different combinations with the title "Three Gothic Novels" is yoeman's work. Kudos.
Separating out other peoples cataloging the "Three Gothic Novels" as if it wasn't a complete "work" because of the amateurish dislike that Horace Walpole shouldn't be the primary author is at best sloppy paternalism.
Sigh.
29prosfilaes
#26, does your antique DOS-based database not export to comma separated text? Most programs can import from that. If all else fails, you can probably export in some text format you could mangle into something modern programs can read, but that would take some knowledge in a text manging program.
30trollsdotter
#26
Having converted a couple of DOS databases to Access, I feel your pain. I had the most trouble with date fields and ended up having to type them in. If the DOS db will run in XP, for instance, it is possible to copy & paste from the DOS window.
Now you've started me thinking on how to redesign my db to allow tagging of my short stories. Hopefully Tim & Co. will work faster (not that hard) and save me the pain.
Having converted a couple of DOS databases to Access, I feel your pain. I had the most trouble with date fields and ended up having to type them in. If the DOS db will run in XP, for instance, it is possible to copy & paste from the DOS window.
Now you've started me thinking on how to redesign my db to allow tagging of my short stories. Hopefully Tim & Co. will work faster (not that hard) and save me the pain.
31trollsdotter
#29
If his DOS db is like the ones I worked with, they don't export to csv, but the data in the file (except for dates) was readable by text programs. I used WordPerfect Edit (this was 10 years ago) and macros to clean up the info. It was more fun than retyping all of the data.
If his DOS db is like the ones I worked with, they don't export to csv, but the data in the file (except for dates) was readable by text programs. I used WordPerfect Edit (this was 10 years ago) and macros to clean up the info. It was more fun than retyping all of the data.
32vpfluke
There is a Short Story Index: Collections Indexed, 1900-1978 put out by the H W Wilson Co., and available for searching online for a fee. I remember seeing multiple volumes of this in the reference rooms of libraries everywhere. Maybe its database could be integrated into LT at some point in the future if there is any compatibility.
33myshelves
" Separating out other peoples cataloging . . . sloppy paternalism"
:-) As we all know, nothing you do can change anyone's cataloging. Most people don't pay any attention to the combining anyway. If I could be paternalistic, titles and names of authors would be correctly spelled more often. :-)
I was trying to get the copies sufficiently separated so that someone wouldn't come along 5 minutes later and recombine the 2 books with different contents, thus requiring more "yeoman's work." Moving them to the editor pages (as cataloged by many) seemed the safest way. I see that they are all back with Walpole, and probably correctly combined at present. I don't intend to mess with that.
:-) As we all know, nothing you do can change anyone's cataloging. Most people don't pay any attention to the combining anyway. If I could be paternalistic, titles and names of authors would be correctly spelled more often. :-)
I was trying to get the copies sufficiently separated so that someone wouldn't come along 5 minutes later and recombine the 2 books with different contents, thus requiring more "yeoman's work." Moving them to the editor pages (as cataloged by many) seemed the safest way. I see that they are all back with Walpole, and probably correctly combined at present. I don't intend to mess with that.
34SilentInAWay
For those who are hoping that LT will eventually support the cataloging of individual stories, poems or essays in an anthology, you may wish to read these remarks by Tim on the subject of defining relationships between works.
