New Series: Best Practices 2
This is a continuation of the topic New Series: Best Practices.
TalkTalk about LibraryThing
Join LibraryThing to post.
2amanda4242
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/New_Series_-_best_practices
Some major points from the previous thread:
1. First, do no harm.
2. While a certain degree of consistency is desirable across all series, different types of series will require different approaches. It is less important to have a site-wide style than it is to simply be consistent within a series; this means using consistent labels, capitalization, etc.
3. Hold off on combining chronological and publication order series for now. The publication sort is buggy and many people would like a way to set publication as their default sort.
4. Adding anthologies to a series: There's quite a bit of disagreement over whether or not to add an anthology--defined here as a collection containing works by multiple authors--and the only thing most people seem to agree on is that it's fine to add an anthology if the relevant story hasn't been catalogued.
Please be aware that adding anthologies brings in unrelated series and CK (characters, places, and awards) and there is currently no way to remove unrelated information from a series.
5. Comics & Graphic Novels: As there's no uniform way of publishing them, there isn't a uniform way to organize them. Use your best judgment and be consistent within the series. Some different models:
•Persepolis
•Lucifer (I favor this style as it allows for the display of all the cover art.)
•Marvel 1602 Universe
6. Different series with identical names: Apparently the system allows for this but there's no way to tell which series is which when searching for them. Some people are in favor of adding distinguishing information, such as the author's surname, to the series name to differentiate. If adding extra info, do not use brackets as they will interfere with touchstones.
7. Combine multiple language series into one, i.e. there should be just one series, not one per language. See The Witcher
8. For multiple versions of the same series: If combining them adds no new data, delete one of them. If the only difference is the series name, choose one to delete and add the alternate name to the remaining series. See Medieval Mysteries
9. For series continued by another author, either with or without the participation or authorization of the original author, there is no clear consensus on whether the later works should be Core. Recommendation: decide on a case-by-case basis and use the series description field to explain your approach. See Wheel of Time
10. Make use of the description field. It's there for a reason!
11. How you organize works on the edit page affects how the works are organized in the "Ungroup" display. Make sure when organizing series that your establishment allows for all groups to fall into the appropriate location in the timeline when someone clicks Ungroup. See The Chronicles of St Mary's
12. What constitutes the "core" varies by series. Many feel that novellas are not "core," but The Murderbot Diaries is an example of novellas actually being the foundation of a series. As always, use your best judgement, be consistent within the series, and don't be afraid to explain your reasoning with the description field.
13. Books that were published as one volume in one language and were issued as several volumes in another are not a series, nor are works that were split into multiple volumes for paperback release. Use the Work-to-Work relationships on the Work page instead (specifically, contains / is contained in). See The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and Imajica.
13a. In cases where an actual series has split editions, the split editions are part of the series. See Kingdom of Outremer
14. Publisher series continue to be distinct from regular series, and many of the guidelines for regular series will not apply to them. See here for an explanation of the difference between a regular and publisher series.
If other people can summarize other major points, I can add them to this post so they'll all be at the top of the thread.
Some major points from the previous thread:
1. First, do no harm.
2. While a certain degree of consistency is desirable across all series, different types of series will require different approaches. It is less important to have a site-wide style than it is to simply be consistent within a series; this means using consistent labels, capitalization, etc.
3. Hold off on combining chronological and publication order series for now. The publication sort is buggy and many people would like a way to set publication as their default sort.
4. Adding anthologies to a series: There's quite a bit of disagreement over whether or not to add an anthology--defined here as a collection containing works by multiple authors--and the only thing most people seem to agree on is that it's fine to add an anthology if the relevant story hasn't been catalogued.
Please be aware that adding anthologies brings in unrelated series and CK (characters, places, and awards) and there is currently no way to remove unrelated information from a series.
5. Comics & Graphic Novels: As there's no uniform way of publishing them, there isn't a uniform way to organize them. Use your best judgment and be consistent within the series. Some different models:
•Persepolis
•Lucifer (I favor this style as it allows for the display of all the cover art.)
•Marvel 1602 Universe
6. Different series with identical names: Apparently the system allows for this but there's no way to tell which series is which when searching for them. Some people are in favor of adding distinguishing information, such as the author's surname, to the series name to differentiate. If adding extra info, do not use brackets as they will interfere with touchstones.
7. Combine multiple language series into one, i.e. there should be just one series, not one per language. See The Witcher
8. For multiple versions of the same series: If combining them adds no new data, delete one of them. If the only difference is the series name, choose one to delete and add the alternate name to the remaining series. See Medieval Mysteries
9. For series continued by another author, either with or without the participation or authorization of the original author, there is no clear consensus on whether the later works should be Core. Recommendation: decide on a case-by-case basis and use the series description field to explain your approach. See Wheel of Time
10. Make use of the description field. It's there for a reason!
11. How you organize works on the edit page affects how the works are organized in the "Ungroup" display. Make sure when organizing series that your establishment allows for all groups to fall into the appropriate location in the timeline when someone clicks Ungroup. See The Chronicles of St Mary's
12. What constitutes the "core" varies by series. Many feel that novellas are not "core," but The Murderbot Diaries is an example of novellas actually being the foundation of a series. As always, use your best judgement, be consistent within the series, and don't be afraid to explain your reasoning with the description field.
13. Books that were published as one volume in one language and were issued as several volumes in another are not a series, nor are works that were split into multiple volumes for paperback release. Use the Work-to-Work relationships on the Work page instead (specifically, contains / is contained in). See The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and Imajica.
13a. In cases where an actual series has split editions, the split editions are part of the series. See Kingdom of Outremer
14. Publisher series continue to be distinct from regular series, and many of the guidelines for regular series will not apply to them. See here for an explanation of the difference between a regular and publisher series.
If other people can summarize other major points, I can add them to this post so they'll all be at the top of the thread.
3elenchus
>2 amanda4242:
amanda4242, kudos to you for taking the bull by the horns.
Suggested to be added:
> Combine multiple language series into one, i.e. there should be just one series, not one per language
> For multiple versions of the same series:
>> if combination adds no data, just delete one.
>> If two candidates are identical except for Series Name, user choice on which to keep
amanda4242, kudos to you for taking the bull by the horns.
Suggested to be added:
> Combine multiple language series into one, i.e. there should be just one series, not one per language
> For multiple versions of the same series:
>> if combination adds no data, just delete one.
>> If two candidates are identical except for Series Name, user choice on which to keep
4elenchus
Another candidate:
> For series initially considered "done" but later continued with participation or authorization of the original author, versus without such participation of authorization: there is no clear consensus on whether the later works should be Core. Recommendation: decide on a case-by-case basis.
> For series initially considered "done" but later continued with participation or authorization of the original author, versus without such participation of authorization: there is no clear consensus on whether the later works should be Core. Recommendation: decide on a case-by-case basis.
5elenchus
Another:
> Use the Series Description to define the approach used in that instance.
>>Ideally, use the Source designator to classify the type of description used: User Defined, Technical/Disambiguation Notice, Wikipedia, Publisher, Unclassified.
> Use the Series Description to define the approach used in that instance.
>>Ideally, use the Source designator to classify the type of description used: User Defined, Technical/Disambiguation Notice, Wikipedia, Publisher, Unclassified.
6amanda4242
>3 elenchus: And thanks to lilithcat for actually starting the thread!
>3 elenchus:->5 elenchus: Added. Look good?
>3 elenchus:->5 elenchus: Added. Look good?
8elenchus
It's possible (under Edit Series) to mark each Series as "Needs help" or "Looks good".
I don't believe we can search these out just yet, or does a metric appear under Zeitgeist or Statistics somewhere?
Presumably it will be at some point. Consider adding to consensus summary so as people review Series, this data element can be used. I'm curious how many Series have never been looked at since the advent of New Series.
I don't believe we can search these out just yet, or does a metric appear under Zeitgeist or Statistics somewhere?
Presumably it will be at some point. Consider adding to consensus summary so as people review Series, this data element can be used. I'm curious how many Series have never been looked at since the advent of New Series.
9gilroy
Did we want to consider anything from this post?
https://www.librarything.com/topic/321051#7183114
https://www.librarything.com/topic/321051#7183114
10amanda4242
>9 gilroy: Points 3-5 covered, but I'm not sure I'm entirely understanding 1 and 2--no doubt a sign I need to take a break!
11Petroglyph
>2 amanda4242:
#13
Books that were published as one volume in one language, but that were issued as several volumes in another, are not a series. Use the Work-to-Work relationships on the Work page instead (specifically, contains / is contained in).
#13
Books that were published as one volume in one language, but that were issued as several volumes in another, are not a series. Use the Work-to-Work relationships on the Work page instead (specifically, contains / is contained in).
12elenchus
>9 gilroy:
I agree both 1 and 2 from the linked post reflect general consensus (as I understand it).
Another candidate:
> While consistency within a series is important, it is expected that multiple series won't always be consistent between one another. A site-wide template or style is not the goal. Different series will be served best by different approaches.
>> If accepted, suggest the list should be edited so this item falls after the current Item 3.
I agree both 1 and 2 from the linked post reflect general consensus (as I understand it).
Another candidate:
> While consistency within a series is important, it is expected that multiple series won't always be consistent between one another. A site-wide template or style is not the goal. Different series will be served best by different approaches.
>> If accepted, suggest the list should be edited so this item falls after the current Item 3.
13amanda4242
>11 Petroglyph: Added
>12 elenchus: I've amended #3. ETA: I've also switched it to #2 as it's (very slightly) more important than the warning against combining publication and chronological series.
>12 elenchus: I've amended #3. ETA: I've also switched it to #2 as it's (very slightly) more important than the warning against combining publication and chronological series.
14spiphany
>2 amanda4242:
A number of these items are inapplicable to publisher series or work differently in publisher series than in regular series. E.g. the "core" vs. "non-core" distinction for novels vs. collections doesn't seem relevant, and there are few, if any, instances where a publisher series exists in multiple languages, so combining languages doesn't make sense.
Possibly it would make sense to have a separate best practices thread for discussing publisher series. I realize most people are more interested in regular series, but numberically there are far more publisher series and they tend to be messier due to inconsistent naming and duplication.
A number of these items are inapplicable to publisher series or work differently in publisher series than in regular series. E.g. the "core" vs. "non-core" distinction for novels vs. collections doesn't seem relevant, and there are few, if any, instances where a publisher series exists in multiple languages, so combining languages doesn't make sense.
Possibly it would make sense to have a separate best practices thread for discussing publisher series. I realize most people are more interested in regular series, but numberically there are far more publisher series and they tend to be messier due to inconsistent naming and duplication.
15loremistress
I have http://www.librarything.com/nseries/35564/My-Brothers-Husband and http://www.librarything.com/nseries/68742/Mari-de-mon-Fr%C3%A8re both showing up in my series list, which are, respectively, English and French translations of the original Japanese series Otōto no Otto, which does not seem to be on LT. Do I create the original series and combine the two translations into it?
Best practice for manga - combine the English translation into the Japanese? E.g. https://www.librarything.com/nseries/31464/Full-Metal-Panic%21-%5BManga%5D into http://www.librarything.com/nseries/29794/%E3%83%95%E3%83%AB%E3%83%A1%E3%82%BF%E...
Best practice for manga - combine the English translation into the Japanese? E.g. https://www.librarything.com/nseries/31464/Full-Metal-Panic%21-%5BManga%5D into http://www.librarything.com/nseries/29794/%E3%83%95%E3%83%AB%E3%83%A1%E3%82%BF%E...
16gilroy
>12 elenchus: I thought that was still a contentious comment being discussed.
Also, the #2 from my linked post is not general consensus, because some people insist on more than just a number.
Also, the #2 from my linked post is not general consensus, because some people insist on more than just a number.
17PawsforThought
>15 loremistress: Just combine one of the series into the other (decide for youself if it's be better to combine English into French or the other way around) and then add the Japanese title.
18amanda4242
>14 spiphany: I've added a point about publisher series continuing to be distinct and that not all guidelines will apply.
If I'm understanding the concept correctly, then Titan's The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes isn't a regular series and should just be deleted as a Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes publisher series already exists, correct?
If I'm understanding the concept correctly, then Titan's The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes isn't a regular series and should just be deleted as a Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes publisher series already exists, correct?
19spiphany
>18 amanda4242: I don't know. One of the criteria for a regular series is shared characters and world, and that would seem to apply here.
On the other hand, it doesn't have the coherence one would usually expect from a series. I'm not familiar with the series, but I gather all the pieces were written independently at various times by various authors without any intent that they connect to each other and the publisher has retroactively collected them in a series.
I suppose there could be some value in having two series -- one for the publisher series and an additional regular series that could serve as a catch-all for all non-canonical Sherlock Holmes fan fiction, though it would perhaps need to be named something else. I'm not sure how people would feel about the latter, and I can't think of any other analogous cases.
It's unusual for there to be such a large number of works based on certain characters that aren't in some way "authorized" as part of the series, either by the author/their estate (e.g. the Pern continuations by McCaffrey's son) or by another commercial entity (the Star Wars universe). There's some of this, for example, with Shakespeare plays or with Alice and Wonderland, but most of these works rewrite or engage in a dialogue with their source of inspiration rather than continuing an open-ended episodic format implicit in the original.
By the way, as far as I can tell it is not currently possible to create relationships between a regular series and a publisher series. This is one instance (I've stumbled across a few others) where it would be useful to be able to do so.
On the other hand, it doesn't have the coherence one would usually expect from a series. I'm not familiar with the series, but I gather all the pieces were written independently at various times by various authors without any intent that they connect to each other and the publisher has retroactively collected them in a series.
I suppose there could be some value in having two series -- one for the publisher series and an additional regular series that could serve as a catch-all for all non-canonical Sherlock Holmes fan fiction, though it would perhaps need to be named something else. I'm not sure how people would feel about the latter, and I can't think of any other analogous cases.
It's unusual for there to be such a large number of works based on certain characters that aren't in some way "authorized" as part of the series, either by the author/their estate (e.g. the Pern continuations by McCaffrey's son) or by another commercial entity (the Star Wars universe). There's some of this, for example, with Shakespeare plays or with Alice and Wonderland, but most of these works rewrite or engage in a dialogue with their source of inspiration rather than continuing an open-ended episodic format implicit in the original.
By the way, as far as I can tell it is not currently possible to create relationships between a regular series and a publisher series. This is one instance (I've stumbled across a few others) where it would be useful to be able to do so.
20amanda4242
>19 spiphany: Most of the books were originally published independently and later republished as "Further Adventures" by Titan. Some of the books have only been published by Titan, but the wiki entry regarding publisher series states, "works may be republications of older works or they may be entirely new works that have never been published before," so I'm pretty sure it's strictly a publisher series.
The Titan regular series was no doubt created because all the works were being published under the "Further Adventures" banner, but, outside of the two books which are part of Fred Saberhagen's Dracula Sequence, their only shared characteristics are that they feature Sherlock Holmes, they weren't written by Arthur Conan Doyle, and a publisher stuck a label on them.
an additional regular series that could serve as a catch-all for all non-canonical Sherlock Holmes fan fiction
DEAR GOD NO!!! A catch-all series for all non-Doyle Holmes stories would be a nightmare! We should no more make a series out of every book featuring Holmes than we should make one for every book featuring Dracula. We already have a Sherlock Holmes character page to show all of the great detective's appearances.
The Titan regular series was no doubt created because all the works were being published under the "Further Adventures" banner, but, outside of the two books which are part of Fred Saberhagen's Dracula Sequence, their only shared characteristics are that they feature Sherlock Holmes, they weren't written by Arthur Conan Doyle, and a publisher stuck a label on them.
an additional regular series that could serve as a catch-all for all non-canonical Sherlock Holmes fan fiction
DEAR GOD NO!!! A catch-all series for all non-Doyle Holmes stories would be a nightmare! We should no more make a series out of every book featuring Holmes than we should make one for every book featuring Dracula. We already have a Sherlock Holmes character page to show all of the great detective's appearances.
21BookstoogeLT
Has the "series" been locked for a specific reason? I did not wade through the first thread, as this one was already started by the time I had this question.
22BookstoogeLT
I can't add a work to the series:edit: add. I want to add Limelight by Dan Willis, to the Arcane Casebook series but when I try to search for it, even though it is in my library, it doesn't show up to add to the series. How do I proceed?
Edited to add:
got it. This is stupid...
Edited to add:
got it. This is stupid...
23Nicole_VanK
"Series" has been moved to "work relationships". I'm fine with that, but I think the CK field should now be removed. (But maybe LT staff still needs it there until the change is complete. I don't know.)
24scott_beeler
>23 Nicole_VanK: We've been told the old-style CK series are being kept around as reference until the new ones are more cleaned up from any problems from their automated creation. I don't know what the estimate is on how long that will be.
25amanda4242
Any thoughts on making a series for each season of a TV show? The Walking Dead {TV series} has six subseries: one for each season, complete with every episode of that season, and one for all of the episodes. Seems like overkill to me.
26Nicole_VanK
>24 scott_beeler: Ah, I missed that. Thank you. Makes sense.
27SandraArdnas
>25 amanda4242: I agree. I don't see what's gained by all those subseries since all of the episodes are already listed
28Crypto-Willobie
I'm putting this here instead of in the Series Help thread because of the conceptual issues involved. Help me out here with the protocols of Lord of the Rings-related series…
I’m not absolutely sure, but it appears that series can only be ‘Related’ to each other if they have at least one work in common. So, in order to link these key Tolkienian series to The Lord of the Rings series on its Series page some of the following need to be added to the main LotR series. Here's my reasoning:
=================================
The History of the Hobbit https://www.librarything.com/nseries/17331/The-History-of-the-Hobbit
This series consists of two volumes of drafts of an early version of The Hobbit, and, in its box-set format, also includes a corrected text of The Hobbit itself. This should qualify it to be added to the LotR series as a Collection and Selection – if not for the Hobbit drafts (though I think they should qualify) then at least for the standard Hobbit in the box set.
=====================================
The History of Middle-Earth https://www.librarything.com/nseries/422/The-History-of-Middle-Earth
This twelve-volume series includes four volumes (6 through 9) devoted to early drafts of The Lord of the Rings:
6-The Return of the Shadow
7-The Treason of Isengard
8-The War of the Ring and the End of the Third Age
9-Sauron Defeated
These were later reissued in a slightly different line-up in paperback, but were also conveniently collected in a single volume, volume II of the omnibus box set of The History of Middle-Earth as The History of The Lord of the Rings. These could perhaps be added as ‘related’, or, using the Work Relationships, Lord of the rings could be considered an ‘expansion’ of the draft volumes. Furthermore, most of the rest of these twelve volumes consists of the draft material from which The Silmarillion was constructed, so they should come into the main LotR series one way or the other.
===========================================
Tales of Middle Earth https://www.librarything.com/nseries/7289/Tales-of-Middle-Earth
This series consists of Beren and Luthien, The Children of Hurin, and The Fall of Gondolin. Beren, and to a large extent Gondolin, consists of unrevised extracts from The History of Middle-Earth. So they qualify as Collections and Selections to The History of Middle-Earth, and so are closely related to The Silmarillion which is of course a Core part of the LotR series.
= ========================================
I see that we currently have in The Lord of the Rings series these two titles as ‘Uncategorized’:
Tales from the Perilous Realm
and
Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth.
The former consists of four non-Middle-Earth works, plus the poetry collection The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Actually only a handful of the poems in this collection concern Bombadil, but Tom is a character in LotR, so the case can be made. But there are a number of other editions of AdvTB, both stand-alone and in collections similar to Tales from the Perilous Realm, which need to be swept in here
Unfinished Tales consists mostly of loose ends from the Legendarium (the Silmarillion world) including a tale that became a significant part of the Fall of Gondolin volume. Actually its contents qualify it to be a 13th volume of History of the Middle-Earth, and it probably would have been except that it had already been published when that series was started.
===================================
The above works from related series could be added to the LotR series as
Related or
Additional Material or
Drafts (a new category).
===================================
BUG?
When I try to use the 'three square brackets' to touchstone the series discussed above they take me to unexpected places.
When I tri-brack the series Tales of Middle Earth it shows as Fall of Gondolin.
When I do the same to most of the other series discussed (The History of the Hobbit, The History of Middle-Earth, and Tales of Middle Earth) they show as Lord of the rings with a small R.
I can't quite figure out why the series tri-bracks are working this way -- some effect of Work-to-Work Relationships? -- but even if they're all connected that way they're still not connected in such a way as to show as Related Series on each other's Series page. But they should be...
I’m not absolutely sure, but it appears that series can only be ‘Related’ to each other if they have at least one work in common. So, in order to link these key Tolkienian series to The Lord of the Rings series on its Series page some of the following need to be added to the main LotR series. Here's my reasoning:
=================================
The History of the Hobbit https://www.librarything.com/nseries/17331/The-History-of-the-Hobbit
This series consists of two volumes of drafts of an early version of The Hobbit, and, in its box-set format, also includes a corrected text of The Hobbit itself. This should qualify it to be added to the LotR series as a Collection and Selection – if not for the Hobbit drafts (though I think they should qualify) then at least for the standard Hobbit in the box set.
=====================================
The History of Middle-Earth https://www.librarything.com/nseries/422/The-History-of-Middle-Earth
This twelve-volume series includes four volumes (6 through 9) devoted to early drafts of The Lord of the Rings:
6-The Return of the Shadow
7-The Treason of Isengard
8-The War of the Ring and the End of the Third Age
9-Sauron Defeated
These were later reissued in a slightly different line-up in paperback, but were also conveniently collected in a single volume, volume II of the omnibus box set of The History of Middle-Earth as The History of The Lord of the Rings. These could perhaps be added as ‘related’, or, using the Work Relationships, Lord of the rings could be considered an ‘expansion’ of the draft volumes. Furthermore, most of the rest of these twelve volumes consists of the draft material from which The Silmarillion was constructed, so they should come into the main LotR series one way or the other.
===========================================
Tales of Middle Earth https://www.librarything.com/nseries/7289/Tales-of-Middle-Earth
This series consists of Beren and Luthien, The Children of Hurin, and The Fall of Gondolin. Beren, and to a large extent Gondolin, consists of unrevised extracts from The History of Middle-Earth. So they qualify as Collections and Selections to The History of Middle-Earth, and so are closely related to The Silmarillion which is of course a Core part of the LotR series.
= ========================================
I see that we currently have in The Lord of the Rings series these two titles as ‘Uncategorized’:
Tales from the Perilous Realm
and
Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth.
The former consists of four non-Middle-Earth works, plus the poetry collection The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Actually only a handful of the poems in this collection concern Bombadil, but Tom is a character in LotR, so the case can be made. But there are a number of other editions of AdvTB, both stand-alone and in collections similar to Tales from the Perilous Realm, which need to be swept in here
Unfinished Tales consists mostly of loose ends from the Legendarium (the Silmarillion world) including a tale that became a significant part of the Fall of Gondolin volume. Actually its contents qualify it to be a 13th volume of History of the Middle-Earth, and it probably would have been except that it had already been published when that series was started.
===================================
The above works from related series could be added to the LotR series as
Related or
Additional Material or
Drafts (a new category).
===================================
BUG?
When I try to use the 'three square brackets' to touchstone the series discussed above they take me to unexpected places.
When I tri-brack the series Tales of Middle Earth it shows as Fall of Gondolin.
When I do the same to most of the other series discussed (The History of the Hobbit, The History of Middle-Earth, and Tales of Middle Earth) they show as Lord of the rings with a small R.
I can't quite figure out why the series tri-bracks are working this way -- some effect of Work-to-Work Relationships? -- but even if they're all connected that way they're still not connected in such a way as to show as Related Series on each other's Series page. But they should be...
29amanda4242
>28 Crypto-Willobie: You can add a relationship without overlapping works. Go to Relationships/Combine, click Add Relationship, and search for the series with which you want to show a relationship. See Whyborne & Griffin and Rath & Rune as an example.
I'm not having a problem with touchstones on the series you mention: Tales of Middle Earth, The History of the Hobbit, The History of Middle-Earth.
I'm not having a problem with touchstones on the series you mention: Tales of Middle Earth, The History of the Hobbit, The History of Middle-Earth.
30Crypto-Willobie
This message has been deleted by its author.
31Crypto-Willobie
>29 amanda4242:
Oh, right, thanks... I always forget about that pulldown over to the right.
Let me try that...
(time passes)
Hmm... now the problem seems to be that none of the options offered for Related Series quite describe the related series's I'm proposing. I need something like 'Is a Draft Of' or 'Same Universe' or 'Characters in Common' or...?
Oh, right, thanks... I always forget about that pulldown over to the right.
Let me try that...
(time passes)
Hmm... now the problem seems to be that none of the options offered for Related Series quite describe the related series's I'm proposing. I need something like 'Is a Draft Of' or 'Same Universe' or 'Characters in Common' or...?
32Diderot68
In my opinion, "non-canonical" Sherlock Holmes fiction is a genre, not a series. It's a subgenre, if you like, of mystery fiction. You can bring it together with subject headings or reference to Holmes and other well-known characters.
33Diderot68
I take it that by "series" the people working on this mean primarily fiction series by single authors. How are you proposing to handle what are called in library land "monographic series"? These are books by various authors usually on a single topic or range of topics and published by a single publisher. Often these are seriously academic, such as Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, or Publications of the Hakluyt Society. Do these come under your definition of "publishers' series"? They are that, too, but they are less diffuse than, say Signet Classics. I would argue that they are worth following as series, whereas there is little value in sorting out all the Signet Classics.
34Nicole_VanK
I'm insufficiently familiar with Signet Classics. But let me give some examples. Penguin Classics is a publishers series, because pretty much anything in it is also available in other editions. But For Dummies is a regular series, because they are all written in that specific format.
ETA: And I agree, though some caution is necessary, that most seriously academic series are regular series.
ETA: And I agree, though some caution is necessary, that most seriously academic series are regular series.
35gilroy
>33 Diderot68:
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics - exists as a series.
Signet Classics - Imprint, really should NOT be a series, but if people insist, is a publisher's series.
To be frank, what defines a series has not changed. The only thing that changed was a fancier interface.
>34 Nicole_VanK: Penguin Classics is also an imprint and technically should not be a series. It's just like Signet Classics.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics - exists as a series.
Signet Classics - Imprint, really should NOT be a series, but if people insist, is a publisher's series.
To be frank, what defines a series has not changed. The only thing that changed was a fancier interface.
>34 Nicole_VanK: Penguin Classics is also an imprint and technically should not be a series. It's just like Signet Classics.
36MarthaJeanne
>34 Nicole_VanK: There are, however several 'series' that come somewhere in between. A publisher decides to create a new series on a subject, and it is a combination of original works, translations of works previously published in other languages, and reprints of classics in the subject. American publishers may include their editions of works first published in the UK and vice versa.
I have seen these both in popular subjects and in academic subjects. People who own one book in the series may not be aware of the mixed background of the books, even when the book they own is a reprint.
I have seen these both in popular subjects and in academic subjects. People who own one book in the series may not be aware of the mixed background of the books, even when the book they own is a reprint.
37Nicole_VanK
Yeah. I have a few of those. "History of Magic" published by Pennsylvania UP. Some of those are original contributions, but some are reprints of otherwise hard to find books. I call that a publishers series. (I don't think it's currently even listed either way).
38humouress
>2 amanda4242: >3 elenchus: >4 elenchus: >5 elenchus: etc. etc. Would it be easier to set up a wiki page for these ideas?
That way people can just click on headings without having to trawl through all the posts to find suggestions that they're interested in. Keep the debate on the threads and put links on the wiki back to relevant posts for that subject.
That way people can just click on headings without having to trawl through all the posts to find suggestions that they're interested in. Keep the debate on the threads and put links on the wiki back to relevant posts for that subject.
39elenchus
>38 humouress:
If consensus has been achieved on these points, I think a Wiki page would be a better reference & guide than this thread.
If consensus has been achieved on these points, I think a Wiki page would be a better reference & guide than this thread.
40humouress
>39 elenchus: I actually meant 'someone please start one'. Fine, I'll start one but everyone else will have to fill it in because most of these discussions are over my head.
....
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/New_Series_-_best_practices
I've started it. Please add and tidy up.
>2 amanda4242: Please could you add the link to your post?
....
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/New_Series_-_best_practices
I've started it. Please add and tidy up.
>2 amanda4242: Please could you add the link to your post?
41lauralkeet
>40 humouress: THANK YOU for doing this. I thought it was a great suggestion. Hopefully it wasn't too time-consuming. It's nice to have everything documented in one place where it's both easy to find and to add/change as required.
42amanda4242
>40 humouress: Done. Thanks for setting it up!
43humouress
>41 lauralkeet: >42 amanda4242: You're welcome. It wasn't too long; I copied Amanda's post, since she's already updated it from the rest of the thread, and inserted titles and links.
>42 amanda4242: Thanks.
>42 amanda4242: Thanks.
44aspirit
Hey,
Does anyone have complaints or concerns about creating a disambiguation notice (or "technical" note) on the series page about works that are not yet catalogued within LT?
Does anyone have complaints or concerns about creating a disambiguation notice (or "technical" note) on the series page about works that are not yet catalogued within LT?
45amanda4242
>44 aspirit: Sounds reasonable to me.
46humouress
>44 aspirit: Not particularly, but why would you need one? Do you have an example of how it would work?
47gilroy
>44 aspirit: Please give more details about what you have in mind.
Are you meaning unwritten books that are still to come?
Just books that belong in the series that aren't cataloged?
I can't answer in good conscience either direction until you give more explanation.
Are you meaning unwritten books that are still to come?
Just books that belong in the series that aren't cataloged?
I can't answer in good conscience either direction until you give more explanation.
48aspirit
>47 gilroy: this isn't Goodreads. Of course I'm talking about published books (or at least, completed works in collections). The majority of published works are not listed on this site.
>46 humouress: because someone might like to know what's in a series without having to leave LT.
I can provide examples but was asking a general question about best practices.
>46 humouress: because someone might like to know what's in a series without having to leave LT.
I can provide examples but was asking a general question about best practices.
49gilroy
>48 aspirit: based on your answers, I would have to say NO.
This is not meant to be a data warehouse where people one stop shop for details of their books. Even real libraries have to check other sources to know what else is in a series that isn't on their shelves. If it isn't cataloged, just leave it alone. Add a link to the Author's website, if you want.
This is not meant to be a data warehouse where people one stop shop for details of their books. Even real libraries have to check other sources to know what else is in a series that isn't on their shelves. If it isn't cataloged, just leave it alone. Add a link to the Author's website, if you want.
50aspirit
>49 gilroy: why? What do you see would be the harm?
51humouress
>48 aspirit: Wouldn’t it be easier to catalogue them and add them to the series?
52aspirit
>51 humouress: not always. I've come across dozens of missing books that I don't intend to read or give to any specific person, which means I don't want to manage those works in my LT collections.
However, as one example,, I might want to point to the series without having to edit Wikipedia (an irritating process) or link to multiple sites that might each change without leaving a change log.
However, as one example,, I might want to point to the series without having to edit Wikipedia (an irritating process) or link to multiple sites that might each change without leaving a change log.
53amanda4242
It's not quite the same thing as aspirit suggested, but when I write descriptions for completed comics series I usually include the number of issues produced; if something with three works listed is described as a five issue mini-series, the description serves as a reminder to check if the remaining issues have been catalogued.
54gilroy
>50 aspirit: Expectation of the neophyte. That's the harm. If they find it on one or two, they'll whine we aren't doing it on all series. They won't want to do the work themselves, just expect it hand fed to them. As I said, we are not a data warehouse. That's what author websites, real libraries, and sites that specifically track series are for.
The other side of that coin is the Author. They'll come in and make some grand pronouncement that we've screwed up, demand things get changed and such. Again, not wanting to do the work themselves, just demanding others Fix It.
Don't worry about Wikipedia edits. Worry that you have the author's actual website and that it is being updated.
Then leave it at that.
Now if you were just doing as >53 amanda4242: suggests, and saying "this is a X book series" I think that would be okay. But actually listing each book, no.
The other side of that coin is the Author. They'll come in and make some grand pronouncement that we've screwed up, demand things get changed and such. Again, not wanting to do the work themselves, just demanding others Fix It.
Don't worry about Wikipedia edits. Worry that you have the author's actual website and that it is being updated.
Then leave it at that.
Now if you were just doing as >53 amanda4242: suggests, and saying "this is a X book series" I think that would be okay. But actually listing each book, no.
55aspirit
>54 gilroy: don't add info that you can't add to all series is your advice? So that some imaginary members won't whine or make demands that are either easily ignored or addressed? (In Talk, I presume.) And that's unless the info is a description of a few words that can only be determined for some series.
I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that, because I'm slightly horrified.
You absolutely do not get a say here on when and what I contribute on another website, especially when you can't seem to imagine various scenarios that I deal with frequently.
Not every series has only one author, one publisher, or a full listing on any other location. Why would we not add value to LT by providing here that is difficult to find elsewhere about books?
But at this time, I'll assume a certain someone will delete new technical notes of more than a few words on series. I'll keep notes off-site.
I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that, because I'm slightly horrified.
Don't worry about Wikipedia edits. Worry that you have the author's actual website and that it is being updated.
Then leave it at that.
You absolutely do not get a say here on when and what I contribute on another website, especially when you can't seem to imagine various scenarios that I deal with frequently.
Not every series has only one author, one publisher, or a full listing on any other location. Why would we not add value to LT by providing here that is difficult to find elsewhere about books?
But at this time, I'll assume a certain someone will delete new technical notes of more than a few words on series. I'll keep notes off-site.
56gilroy
>55 aspirit: Well, no, that's not what I said at all.
Really reading things incorrectly as well. No, I'm just writing things wrong.
IF you chose to edit Wikipedia, I don't care. If that's your happy place, Great. Wikipedia is not Librarything. This site is not about being completest, unless that is your library goal. This site is about tracking each person's individual data, which happens to bubble into a combined unit. A complete series happens when all those things are done. Really, why are you so hung up on being that completest if not willing to catalog and just complete the series that way? Why do you want to add a note? Explain that part? The value comes from the actual work record, with full details, not a note.
No, not every series has a single anything. But much of that is irrelevant to the series anyway. The only thing that matters is the stories it makes up. Not really the publisher or the editor. Sometimes the illustrator matters. The author does matter, but less so than the story itself.
NEVER EVER assume anything about another person, because you will frequently be proven wrong. It's the only absolute I believe in.
Really reading things incorrectly as well. No, I'm just writing things wrong.
IF you chose to edit Wikipedia, I don't care. If that's your happy place, Great. Wikipedia is not Librarything. This site is not about being completest, unless that is your library goal. This site is about tracking each person's individual data, which happens to bubble into a combined unit. A complete series happens when all those things are done. Really, why are you so hung up on being that completest if not willing to catalog and just complete the series that way? Why do you want to add a note? Explain that part? The value comes from the actual work record, with full details, not a note.
No, not every series has a single anything. But much of that is irrelevant to the series anyway. The only thing that matters is the stories it makes up. Not really the publisher or the editor. Sometimes the illustrator matters. The author does matter, but less so than the story itself.
NEVER EVER assume anything about another person, because you will frequently be proven wrong. It's the only absolute I believe in.
57SandraArdnas
You might create another account to catalogue books you do not wish in your own. You can also catalogue them, put in a series and delete the book. Series will still link to zero copy, which presumably will autocombine when someone else catalogues it. I was considering both options when working on some series awards, etc.
58hf22
>57 SandraArdnas:
I was thinking about suggesting zero-copy books as a solution to this, but I have a vague recollection that creating them was discouraged here?
Can anyone confirm/deny if that is the case?
I was thinking about suggesting zero-copy books as a solution to this, but I have a vague recollection that creating them was discouraged here?
Can anyone confirm/deny if that is the case?
59SandraArdnas
>58 hf22: I'm not sure how it would be discouraged since it's a feature of the site. If you delete a book you've catalogued, it will become zero copy that remains in the database.
It probably wouldn't come to my mind as possibility, but I've found several zero copy works when working on some series. IMO, there are only upsides if what you catalogue (and than delete) will autocombine with works catalogued by someone else later. If it has ISBN and/or title/author you expect to appear in the same form, it will. It might be less useful for comics or some other stuff not as easily autocombined later
It probably wouldn't come to my mind as possibility, but I've found several zero copy works when working on some series. IMO, there are only upsides if what you catalogue (and than delete) will autocombine with works catalogued by someone else later. If it has ISBN and/or title/author you expect to appear in the same form, it will. It might be less useful for comics or some other stuff not as easily autocombined later
60gilroy
>58 hf22: I'm not sure the zero copy concept would work in this instance. There are people who remove the zero copy from EVERYTHING, including the base work. (Probably a quarter of my combination stats is reattaching the zero copy to the proper work.)
62humouress
When you use the triple square brackets to create a series touchstone in a post, it brings up a list of series with that, or similar, names. However, unlike book touchstones which usually have an author's name attached, there is no way to tell which particular one might be the one you want.
I know not all series have a single author and I realise that it's up to whoever names the series to put some clarifying information in the names but it would be helpful if there was something that was automatically added by LT (like authors' or publishers' names) or if people were encouraged to put in the clarifying information when naming series. Maybe even a pop-up box if there is already a series with that name?
I know not all series have a single author and I realise that it's up to whoever names the series to put some clarifying information in the names but it would be helpful if there was something that was automatically added by LT (like authors' or publishers' names) or if people were encouraged to put in the clarifying information when naming series. Maybe even a pop-up box if there is already a series with that name?
63paradoxosalpha
>62 humouress: no way to tell which particular one might be the one you want
I didn't realize that triple-brackets would get us series touchstones! Thanks for that. The problem you describe can happen even in book touchstones, where there are apparent duplicates or the author info is blank or somehow insufficient.
My trick for that is to:
1) Right-click on the link for a touchstone candidate (in the "others" dialog) and open it in a new tab or window.
2) Review there to see if it's the one I want.
I didn't realize that triple-brackets would get us series touchstones! Thanks for that. The problem you describe can happen even in book touchstones, where there are apparent duplicates or the author info is blank or somehow insufficient.
My trick for that is to:
1) Right-click on the link for a touchstone candidate (in the "others" dialog) and open it in a new tab or window.
2) Review there to see if it's the one I want.
64gilroy
>62 humouress: I've been trying to reinstitute the whole "Like Series add the author last name (or as much as needed to identify the author)" to the series titles, but there's a lot of series to fix. That being said, I know people are going back and removing what I'm adding, so might be a moot point. (Also of note, I've been changing brackets to parenthesis since brackets screw up the touchstones.)
65jasbro
>64 gilroy: I've been trying to reinstitute the whole "Like Series add the author last name (or as much as needed to identify the author)" to the series titles ... . Thank you, gilroy! Unless we've decided to move away from that practice and toward some other means to distinguish "like" Series, (a) I'm with you, and (b) it's not a moot point. Unless there's an alternative, how do we communicate and educate on the necessity?
I've been changing brackets to parenthesis since brackets screw up the touchstones. I thought we were promoting braces ("{}") in lieu of brackets or parentheses, since LT specifically treats both brackets (touchstones) and parentheses (ignored) differently?
I've been changing brackets to parenthesis since brackets screw up the touchstones. I thought we were promoting braces ("{}") in lieu of brackets or parentheses, since LT specifically treats both brackets (touchstones) and parentheses (ignored) differently?
66gilroy
>65 jasbro: Depends on what device I'm using at the time? I've not been able to find the curly brackets on my android phone. (Time to get the glasses checked, probably.)
Computer, I'm more likely to use the curly brackets.
Computer, I'm more likely to use the curly brackets.
