Combiner's Group Information & Discussion Thread

This thread is NOT for individual problems!!

Please post problems in a separate thread... such as the "Please fix this book" thread.

This thread is for information about solutions, fixes, challenges, opinions about issues that come up in combining & separating the works on LT.

ANYONE who posts here without reading the thread & asks a question that has already been answered in this thread will be lashed 1,000 times with a wet noodle & thrown in the lowest level of the dragon infested dungeons of LT!! (and that level has no light to read by, so you had better know how to read braille!!)
_____________________________________________

Please copy/paste any solution instructions from other threads in the forum.

When this thread gets to 100 posts, close this thread & post the BEST information in the next thread & then we can continue the discussions. The rationale for only 100 posts is that if it gets too long, NO ONE WILL READ THE POSTS & we will have repeat questions.... then we will run out of noodles & the dungeons will be full.
_________________________________________

AGAIN, Please do not post individual problems except as examples!! and then LINK to the thread you've posted them for fixing!

How to bring an author to "the top":

QUOTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD:
The "trick" I used for this is to add additional copies of the book that has the "wrong" author. I then add enough copies of that edition/ISBN to over-ride that author with the "correct" author. Then I combine those books, hoping that the "correct" author comes on top. When it does, I can then combine all books via the "correct" author page. Then I remove all of the "temporary" copies & hope that no one un-does my work.

This trick usually only works on books with ISBNs.

More complete directions are in another thread in the combiners forum & I haven't woken up sufficiently to find it. That is one reason to read most of the threads in the combiners forum...

ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION:

I am going to suggest that we combine/separate books into only four classifications...

**original edition & translations
**annotated editions (all of them together, not separated by publisher)
**abridgments (including audiobooks when it is noted that they are abridgments)
**ESL/EFL & reading leveled editions for school/academic learning.

***edited to add: Adaptation/Performances as a category for separation. (per BarkingMatt's suggestion)

I'm also inclined to combine cliff notes & other study guides (without the books) together... but I want to hear other opinions. (with the books would be annotated)

Agree/Disagree?

#3 -
I think that's a pretty good start and really don't have any new thoughts to add. I have always considred annotated editions a separate work from the original, as well as abridgements (when noted) and audio books (btw is the reader of the audo book listed as a separate author?). However, if I understand your comment re cliff notes and study guides, I read it that you are combining all of these together? which I would not agree with it, I would separate the study guides by publisher or series and keep all of them separate from the work itself.

Robert A. Mosher

#4: I mentioned the study guides only as an extra mention... I would probably also keep them separate by publisher... but if you need a study guide.... will any study guide do when you cannot get your preferred publisher? That's the point that I'm suggesting, not mandating....

I'm a mediator, not a mandator.

Don't get me wrong, I could live with this - thought I would really want "adaptations" separate from all of the above (they often do show up on the page of the author of the original).

I also do feel that different adaptations (most notably into different media) should not be lumped together. An adaptation in bookform is not a movie is not a comic is not an audio-drama, etc.

But I think we will only get into new discussions like "just how annotated does a book need to be to qualify as an annotated edition".

What's the going opinion on works that have been divided into two parts. Now, I know 1 and 2 aren't combined with eachother and the whole. However, if, say an English work has been divided into two parts for publication in Italian, Dutch, and Portuguese, do we assume the break for Part 1 in Italian is the same as Part 1 in Dutch? (Knowing that both are Part 1 of 2--if one is Part 1 of 2 and one is Part 1 of 3, they wouldn't be combined).

#6: I'm in agreement with you on "adaptations"!!

But, I'm assuming that by adaptations, you mean audio/video "performances".

To use the example of the Chronicles of Narnia, there are the BBC radio performances, the cartoon versions AND the movie adaptations.... and possibly many more.

I don't like to see the "adaptations" listed with the books, but I don't know how to stop/prevent that.

and, should we stop/prevent it?... or just keep separating them out?

and, should we stop/prevent it?... or just keep separating them out?

How would it be stopped or prevented? If it could be, I think that it should.

do we assume the break for Part 1 in Italian is the same as Part 1 in Dutch?

In practice we very often do, and for some works that's reasonable. For example several of Dickens' works were originally published in well defined parts already, and you can sort of accept as reasonable guess that translations will follow the intended devides. But obviously it can be misleading.

Knowing that both are Part 1 of 2--if one is Part 1 of 2 and one is Part 1 of 3, they wouldn't be combined

Ideally not, but very often these books are not called "1 of 2" / "1 of 3", but just volume/part 1.

It seems to me that we are seriously off topic already. Principles of combining should be discussed in another thread, then if there's a consensus. a summary of it should be posted in this thread.

> 8 / 9: Adaptations are here to stay. Like it or not.

Ideally I would like them to show up under the person who made the adaptation. For example the "Lord of the Rings" movies were not made by Tolkien - the guy was long dead and buried. But some people will list them with Tolkien as primary author and in that case I think they should be at least kept apart from the original books.

As for what I mean by adaptations? Yeah mostly movies / audio plays / comics / etc. But there are also examples of novels being turned into plays or vice versa - sometimes even by their original author. In such a case I would like to see a book containing the play separate from the novel as well.

#9: Why not use the disambiguation notices:

suggested wording:

This book has been adapted into a movie version (&/or other types).
If your work is actually the movie instead of the book, you are missing valuable connections by listing it as a book!! If you edit your title to include "movie version" you can then separate it from the books & then combine it with the other movie adaptations.

If you need help with separating & combining, you may go to the Combiners forum & ask there for help!

11> The title of this thread includes "& Discussion" so if you want a thread that doesn't include it you better start a new one.

#11: JimRoberts... no, this is the place for the discussions... eventually, when there are 100 posts, then this thread will be closed & this discussion will be summarized on the new/next thread.

Let's keep discussions & information together so that opinions will be part of the "final" decision... and that all will know that their opinion has (at least) been heard.

I've already changed my opinion on things here, but I'm not the final authority.... just someone with big ears & an even bigger mouth.

Here's my tuppence worth:

**original edition & translations Agree
**annotated editions (all of them together, not separated by publisher) Agree - part of me says separate by publisher, but the logical side of me says that if someone is looking for an annotated edition, it puts them in the same 'social' group whichever publisher
**abridgments (including audiobooks when it is noted that they are abridgments) Definitely agree although I would argue that there is a case for separating adult abridgements from children's such as Puffin books as they would be 'socially' different groupings and are completely different from lexically controlled levels (see next point)
**ESL/EFL & reading leveled editions for school/academic learning Agree that ESL/EFL should be separate, don't necessarily agree with lumping them into reading levelled editions for school/academic learning, once again on the basis of different 'social' interaction with the text. ESL/EFT texts are used more as a linguistic tool rather than a literary tool. The social connections are different enough in my mind to merit division. ESL texts apply to a social group connected by linguistic studies and competence rather than age. Reading levelled editions for schools connect a group that are likely to be already fluent in English but are grouped more by age and connection with the text as an object of literary study.
***edited to add: Adaptation/Performances as a category for separation. (per BarkingMatt's suggestion) Agree with the fact that different media should be separated too.
I'm also inclined to combine cliff notes & other study guides (without the books) together... but I want to hear other opinions. (with the books would be annotated) I would have to be on the side of 3 tiers of separation: the work alone, annotated editions, study guides rather than lumping annotated editions with study guides or the text.

***edited to add: Adaptation/Performances as a category for separation. (per BarkingMatt's suggestion) Agree with the fact that different media should be separated too.

No. It's already been established that audio books should be combined with their paper counterparts.

Sorry jjwilson61, I meant DVDs, graphic novels etc not audiobooks. Didn't make that clear

Audiobook, okay - I see the point if it's a recording of someone reading the actual text in full. Audio-drama is quite something else.

Audiodrama is certainly different from audiobook BarkingMatt, I agree.

Exactly. The point is is that it isn't the media that makes it different but the content.

What is really needed, I suppose, is "Works" and "Subworks", or maybe "Works" and "Links". For example Romeo and Juliet would have links to:

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare

and

Sparks/Cliffs notes on Romeo and Juliet

and

audiobooks of Romeo and Juliet

and

the restored Klingon text of Romeo and Juliet

and

film versions of Romeo and Juliet

and

opera versions of Romeo and Juliet

and

West Side Story

and

the soundtrack CD to West Side Story

and

Shakepeare in Love

You could possibly approach this with tagging but only if tags had some sort of standardization.

>21 jjwilson61:: True, and I wouldn't mind movie versions on DVD mixed up with same on VHS for instance. I was thinking of "movie" as medium.

>22 setnahkt:: Yeah, it would be nice if there was some way to indicate relations between works. I sort of remember some such feature was promised somewhere in the past...

For now I list adaptations - such as I have in my own catalog - with the adapter as primary author, and explaining in the comment field. Just my method, not necessarily thinking this is the best way to do it.

DIRECTIONS FOR COMBINING AUTHORS WHEN THE SEARCH PUTS THE AUTHOR TO BE COMBINED ON THE SECOND PAGE:
(sorry for 'shouting')

(copied from another thread)
****, when I've come to the second page, I will open it in another tab & if there is an author that I want to combine to the original author, I will open that author & then put the original author in the search box & then combine that way.

suggested example

original author: Charles Brooks
http://www.librarything.com/combine.php?...

now, if I put brooks into the search I get this page:
http://www.librarything.com/search_autho...

then I will open the second page in a new tab, resulting in this page
http://www.librarything.com/search_autho...

On the second page, there is a listing (with no books) for CH. Brooks... (CH is an old abbreviation for Charles & many Charles used CH in their signature). The CH BROOKS page is here:
http://www.librarything.com/author/brook...

Then I would go to the combining page:
http://www.librarything.com/combine.php?...
which has a monkey error listed, but I'm ignoring it for now & this example

Now I would enter Charles Brooks in the search box & get the listing:
http://www.librarything.com/search_autho...

I would then combine CH BROOKS with the Charles Brooks ed. to put CH with Charles the editor & main listing.
BUT DON'T COMBINE THEM!! there is a disambiguation notice for CH BROOKS & I'll let that be without comment.

*****, I hope that this helps you understand & get "around" the possible challenge this poses.

What is meant by annotated editions? Do you mean, for instance, the Norton Critical Editions? I would not want them to be combined with other "critical" editions as the criticism contained would be vastly different from other works which include essays, criticism, etc. To me this is the essense of "work" and justifies keeping them separate. However, different editions of the Norton Critical Editions would, to me, fall under the jurisdiction of textbooks, and therefore be combined.

As an ESL teacher, I would not like to see Children's abridgments combined with ESL abridgements because they would be completely different works with completely different purposes. I also don't like to see different abridgments of, say, children's leveled readers lumped together but could be pursuaded, I guess. My reasoning is this: my daughter has maybe 5 different versions of Cinderella. Some are Perrault, some are disney, and some are beginner readers, and my feeling is that never the twain/three shall meet. Especially when you have different illustrators, even Children's works vary greatly.

New question, and please avoid the wet noodle treatment, as I searched various threads and even posed the question on a different thread and was told to bring it here.

My question is this: do we combine different editions/years of a travel guide? The only "solution" I saw proffered was based on whether the year was mentioned in the title or not. That seems a rather artificial deciding mechanism.

My gut tells me to treat them as editions and therefore Explore Prague would be combined with Explore Prague, 2001 and Explore Prague, 2008. What changes between editions would, to me, seem relatively minor: changes in hotel names and recommendations, etc. I guess I would only separate two works (with same publisher) if the jurisdiction changed: Explore Seattle would be separate from Explore Seattle and Portland.

What do other people think?

no wet noodles...

This has been discussed, and a minor consensus was reached for most books, but it is not mandated

The suggestion was made to combine editions in decade increments. 2000-2009, 1990-1999, 1980-1989, etc. There are some travel guides that go back many many many years.

The reasoning went that while the Michelin Red/Green/Purple 2006 might be similar to the 2007 guide, it may/will not be similar to the 1967 guide.

In my viewpoint, if there are only 10 Michelin Guides to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, then I would combine them... even though the oldest may not be similar to the most current.

On the other hand, the 5000+ copies of Michelin Paris would be better served by grouping them in 10 year increments instead of grouping them as one work.... and also remembering that the Red Guide is different from the Green Guide, etc.

I hope this helps & I also hope that others will chime in with their opinion both agreeing & disagreeing (with suggestions on what they think should be done.)

>26 labfs39:
I would agree that different editions/years of a travel guide would be combinable as the same work. In general I think the default should be to combine editions for most types of works - the exceptions that come to mind are for "Annual" editions of works meant to highlight the differences from one year to the next - almanacs, guiness book of world records, etc (basically an "annual periodical") - even then if there are only a few editions represented on LT I would argue that they could be combined for the "social aspect."

But there will always be grey areas: For instance - someone took great pains to separate out all the yearly editions of :The Red Book and create a series - that, to me, was in a definate grey area.

On a completely different note:
There has been intermittant discussion about contacting individual members re: possible data errors and the general idea (per Tim) is that it is not forbidden but not encouraged (taking into account a users perceived interest in the "social" aspects of the site, etc) but in general the default is NOT to contact.
I, for one, would prefer to be contacted if someone notices an error in my data and have posted a "Release" on my Profile to this effect -

i.e.
2.) Release to Contact Me - in my comments on this page regarding any errors you find in my Library (Combiners - THIS MEANS YOU!), feel free also to contact me via comments if you disagree with any combining/separating I have done on LT.

My idea is that if someone stumbles across my profile and realizes that people might not be informing them of errors because of fear of "stepping on their toes" they might include such a statement on THEIR profile thereby encouraging the free exchange of advise or corrections without fear of anger/retribution.

>28 PortiaLong:: Yeah, Tim agreed that if it's really about a clear case of bad data you can contact the user. The point is of course also to do so in a friendly / polite way. What he doesn't want is flame wars about "correct" data entry.

>25 labfs39:: My reasoning is this: my daughter has maybe 5 different versions of Cinderella. Some are Perrault, some are disney, and some are beginner readers, and my feeling is that never the twain/three shall meet. Especially when you have different illustrators, even Children's works vary greatly.

I agree, that's why I wouldn't put the Disney "Cinderella" under Perrault. However, for those books that are listed in this way - Disney's "Alice", for example, is listed by some people with Lewis Carroll as primary author and so does come up on his page - I think we are right in separating them from the main work.

But some works do have a huge number of different abridged editions (& adaptations), in which case I could see the point of not combining all of these with each other. The Disney "Alice" is a good example again because it hugely differs from any other adaptation (since it mixes up "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass").

Different straight translations and illustrators should however be combined, imho, though I agree there can be huge pleasure in having several. I have that for Lewis Carroll and am perfectly okay with the fact that under the rules of LT combining they are different editions of the same "work".

BarkingMatt @ #23 True, and I wouldn't mind movie versions on DVD mixed up with same on VHS for instance. I was thinking of "movie" as medium

I agree with you on this one. The way I see it, LT is primarily a book site, whatever people actually decide to catalogue, so I would be happy with the general distinction that you are connected with others who have a book in the form of visual media adaptation as opposed to print/audiobook. The subtleties of connection relating to exact visual media adaptation/format are not something that I think is or should be important to LT. Now, if there's ever a DVDThing, that's a different kettle of fish!

I'm copying PortiaLong's description of combining from the "please fix this book thread" message #65

The best places to start to learn combining for yourself are:

1.) On the "Editions" page - sometimes it helps to look at the Editions page for EACH copy that you find because they aren't always two-way. If there are copies that LT thinks MAYBE should be combined they will show up under the ones that are already together and there will be a link "Combine/Separate" potentials. Be careful though - not all of LTs suggestions are good ones.

2.) On the Author's "Combine/Separate" page - if you go to the Author's page - there is a link above and to the right of the list of works (in the "Books By" title bar). You can then look through the author's books and combine from there. LT won't necessary know that two titles are the same so for instance:

How to Combine (A LT combiners guide)
and
How to Combine: An LT combiner's Guide

will show up as two different works (which you may of course combine - once I have gotten around to writing it ;-)

Thank you, PortiaLong!!

also from PortiaLong:

message #149 from the please fix this book #5:

>136 Now is there a guide on how you did it so if the problem comes up again I can do it myself.

Well, I did a "basics" in message 65 in this thread - beyond that - different combiners have different tricks they have come up with including:
* adding "ghost books" with various combinations of titles/authors/ISBNs to force suggestions and then deleting them when the combining is done,
* finding outliers that match one or the other of things trying to be combined until you hit on some magic combination that generates the correct suggestions,
* checking suggestions from either end (If A doesn't show on B, see if B shows on A),
* forcing works to show up under a specific author so combinings can be done on the authors page, etc.

All of them can be very time consuming and have to be done carefully to make sure you clean up any messes that you make. Not every combining will yield to every trick so we offer up stubborn ones here for others to try THEIR bag of tricks on.

Thanks again!

I thought I would repost my post about -

Using "Series" to Help with Combining
from another thread in this group.

I have recently started using "Series" more while feeding my Combining/Separating addiction. Where appropriate, using a series that already exists or creating one, I search out all of the works that belong in the series and add the CK information. I separate out mis-combined volumes as I go – by clicking on the separated work I can add the CK info to the temporarily orphaned work and get back to the original using my browsers back arrow. Then I can work on combining from the series page to get rid of duplicates (this is a lot easier than working from the search page as each work now has a link - the series info - to get back to the list I am working from).

While doing this today I thought of some more fun things that they could do with the series page – which I have posted in the “Recommend Site Improvements” group here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/49247&...

Just though I would post this in case other Combiners might find it helpful.

NOTE: this does NOT make the individual combinings any easier (i.e. it does not cause LT to generate any more "potentials") - what it DOES do is allow you to do is see the information organized all in one place.

Some time ago I entered my English and German copies of Thomas Mann's Death in Venice.

http://www.librarything.com/work/45188/editions/38239251

At the time I noticed that copies of both of my editions, along with others were combined into one work. Most of these are anthologies with other short works of Mann along with the Novella that gives the title. The other short works are not the same in my English and German copies. I have no idea what is contained in the other German and English editions, never mind in any of the other languages represented.

I thought about the level of importance I personally give to this book, the chance that I'm going to reread even Death in Venice, never mind the other stories in either language (both low), the length of time it would take to even begin to sort out the various editions and try to discover which have the same stories, never mind the almost 500 copies that have no ISBN or subtitle, and decided to put mine into the big work, and not worry about it.

I find that I feel vaguely guilty about this, but not guilty enough to think that the job is possible or even all that desirable to have done. Looking at the editions page for this work again confirms me in this opinion. Comments?

msg 35 This does look rather hopeless. I did look at the Google book info ( on the right hand side of the work page in the green) and noticed that the Penguin book Death in Venice and Other Tales has twelve stories so this is obviously not the same work as your book Death in Venice: and Seven Other Stories so I attempted to separate that title and ISBN out. Who knows where the separated titles went though to combine these together.

The most that might be possible is several separate editions that we know are different, but we'd still be left with the largest group being books that we can't put in any specific work. With disambiguation, we might even keep them apart. For both this book and similar messes - is it worth trying?

It would totally separate the language editions. Anyone discussing 'Death in Venice' doesn't mean a collection of stories, but one specific one.

ISBN 0671009443 is a Monarch notes so we can watch out for that one ( especially as it is hashed in with Howard Stern's Private Parts).

WorldCat entry: Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and other stories : Tonio Kröger, Tristan, Blood of the Walsungs, Mario and the magician : a critical commentary
by John D Simons

I have just been doing some work on The Hound of the Baskervilles - separating a work subtitled - a murder dossier. I won't go into the reason as I have left disambiguation notices where appropriate. Looking at the rather messy main work, I'd like to go back to the discussion started above #3, #22, etc. There are several issues which have general application.
1. ESL editions - separated and then combined regardless of level? Yes? No?
2. Readings of the whole work left with it, but abridged versions (assuming you can tell) separated and then combined with printed abridgements? Yes? No?
3. Dramatisations separated to stand on their own? Yes? No? There was a printed play of the H of the Bs - should that go with dramatisations?
4. What to do with comics or graphic novels?

I'd be glad to have some views. In passing, I found two felicitous mis-titlings - The Hound of Bakersfield and Baskerville's Dog - both rather lacking in menace, I thought.

#26 & 27

With regard to travel guides, my practice with yearly guides, such as the Michelin Red guides is to keep them separate by year, and then create a series out of them. If you are a collector of these things, then you can easily see on the Series page what you have and what you are missing. Before Series came out, I did combine Michelin Red Guides. (these are the publications that rate hotels and restaurants and give prices).

On the other hand, Michelin Green guides I think are combinable. What I am not totally sure about is whether the different language Green guides are in all cases just translations. (note, Green guides are for sightseeing) The Green guides don't change title just because a new edition comes out. The Red Guide has the year in the title.

For the U.S., I would treat Mobil and AAA Guides like Red Guides. I also treat almanacs like Red Guides.

Blue Guides and Baedekers are like the Michelin Green Guides.

If you go to the Michelin Travel Publications author page, you can see that it is a real mess, (but the Touchstone doesn't work.)

The link for Michelin as an author is: http://www.librarything.com/author/publicationsmichelin There are 805 works listed, which includes maps and atlases, besides the guides.

>40 vpfluke: I entirely agree with your differentiation between the red and green Michelins.

As far as the green guides are concerned I was moved to put a disambiguation statement on the Michelin author page. I first started buying these guides in the 1980s when many were only published in French. While some of the areas (Brittany, Normandy) have remained constant, the older editions often covered smaller areas, even overlapping in some cases. For example the present Burgundy/Jura guide has replaced Burgundy/Jura and Burgundy/Morvan. This has led to inappropriate combinations.

As far as translation goes, I have only seen french and english editions but they, at least, appear to be straight translations.

40> That sounds find and dandy if you collect the things. But if I owned just one Michelin guide wouldn't I have a stronger social connection to all the other Michelin guide owners and not just the owners of the year I bought?

>43 jjwilson61: That's true, but the red Michelin is put out as a year-book, even if much of the information remains the same year after year. I see it in the same way as, say, Wisden or Whitaker's Almanack. Can you not fulfil your wish for social connection via Series, to which yours will belong regardless of date?

Series has no effect on recommendations or showing which works I share with others.

Series don't really do much for social connection. But a single copy of an author or book type doesn't signal a much of a connection with the author or subject. For something like Michelin with 800 titles, having only 1% of the titles would mean owning 8 of the books. You can social connections via tags and author pages. When an author has 800 titles, you really hope for some organization in the assortment. And Michelin remains a mess. We don't even know the most popular titles of Michelin because people like me don't keep up with the combining and separating effort.

I just took a look at National Geographic Magazine. Some are combined, some are not. I would probably want them all separate in order to have all the covers separated.

Is there a way to combine a work when some people have entered one author, others more than one, and others no author at all?

#48: IreneF: most of the time, the "author to the top" method works.... add a copy (or more) of the work with an ISBN to your library... then edit the work to another author & it should automatically combine. if not, separate & combine by author. sometimes, the combine comes up through the editions page. If not, then add enough copies with ISBN so that they are in majority... and the suggestion comes up.

It is trickier for the no author works, but try it... add an ISBN edition & remove the author, making sure the title is IDENTICAL to the no author work... they should combine automatically...

It takes a lot of work & patience... sometimes what will work one time will not work another... sometimes you have to do the same step repeatedly until it works.

be persistent... and good luck

LisaMorr asked a question in the Fix this Book Thread that I though I would move over here:

A question for you (and anyone else interested) - I have both editions of The Stand. (original http://www.librarything.com/work/1242461... complete and uncut version http://www.librarything.com/work/1242461...)
I was surprised to find that the second edition was combined with the first edition. The second edition has more (different) content - additional 'scenes.' Perhaps this has already been debated, but just wanted to see what people thought. It's like the expanded version of Star Wars. Is it the same work because it is substantially the same?

BarkingMatts reply:
Since I don't know both editions of The Stand, I can't comment on this particular case. It is a bit of a gray area - just how much expansion / revision makes a new edition a separate work?

Personally I would say that "substantially the same" - like the expanded Star Wars is still Star Wars - means combining. But then I'm mostly into non-fiction, where virtually every edition is revised. So most works would loose practically all their connections otherwise.

And really what combining is about. Would you think it justified that users having the first edition should loose the connection to users with the second?

And now my own two cents:

I haven't see a discussion specifically about The Stand by Stephen King but a similar situation arises with Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein where the book as first published contained less material than when re-released as "The Original Uncut" version later. This is rather the opposite of when a work was published and then subsequently “Abridged” – the “Abridged” works are usually marked as such whereas someone with the originally published version of the Stand or Stranger might not be aware that they don’t have the “expanded” version of the work.

Now that disambiguation notices are displayed on the page to confirm a combining (THANK YOU, TIM!) it might be easier to keep things separated than it was in the past. So if someone wanted to take the time to separate them out….BUT – for many copies I think it may be difficult to sort out for certain if a given copy is a cut or uncut version (I mentioned in one thread that for Stranger the Amazon data import does not include the “Original Uncut” part of the title for some ISBNs). So – do you leave the “questionables” with the cut or uncut copies? Create a third “work” to hold the unclear ones? (blech!)

See topics below for related discussions:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/42289#888633
http://www.librarything.com/topic/10102&work=6904#103852
(you’ll notice my very first talk post ever at the end of this dormant thread!)

I see a difference between something that was originally published as a certain edition and subsequently re-issued as an extended/complete uncut (or whatever) verision and an abridgement of an existing text. I would group the first instance together, whilst separating abridgements.

I guess my example would be the earlier editions of Magician by Raymond E. Feist and the subsequent edition issued a decade later when Feist was popular and had more clout with the publishers which has additional text and an introduction that explains why it was left out etc. To me, this is an extension/revision of my existing edition, 'socially' I would connect with it as a single work. However, the Folio Society abridged edition of The Gulag Archipelago, reducing it to a single volume novel is, to my mind, a completely different entity to the three volume edition I have. I think it might hang on the fact that, even if an author revises their work at a later date, it is their revision of an agreed and published work. Often, abridgements done after the original publication are nothing to do with the author and are done for many reasons and hence have less of a connection with the original work in my mind.

Mind you, people tell me I'm a little bit odd, so I don't expect you all to agree. Just my two pennies worth!

>>Create a third “work” to hold the unclear ones? (blech!)

I don't like it any better than you do, but often enough it is the only way to separate out things that really don't belong together.

In this case, though I would assume that those whose titles do not include 'uncut' are not going to object to being with the original published version. Whether the others would or not probably varies. (We own 'Stranger', but I don't know which. Probably not the uncut edition.)

Here's a (expanded version of) a set of instructions I just posted in the Fix this Book Thread:

How Do I Separate Out Two Works that Have Combined Together

To separate you go to the link "editions" on the left of the screen. Next to each of the copies there is a "separate" link. You have to click on each copy that you want to separate out. Then, to get them back together again, you go to the author's page, click the combine/separate works link and combine back together all of the ones that belong together. Or you can re-combine from a "potentials" page if they show up there.

Try to keep track of any of the "authorless" (or variant author) copies you separate so you can track them down later and get them back where they belong - What I do is:

After separating instead of going back to the original work I take the link to the separated work long enough to get the "work number" from the address bar and write that down, then I use the browsers "back" button to get back to the original work page. Then I can go back to those works later and try to get them combined back in.

There is really no easier way to do this (i.e. separate out the wrong ones all at once) which is why combiners often lament that it can take hours to undo a miscombining that takes 2 seconds to commit.

Portia, When I'm doing a batch of separating that involves many many separating stages, I will temporarily bookmark the page & refresh it. That way I know that I'm using the same page/work/book/edition.

But as we know, we all have our own tricks/methods of doing our work.

That's a great description.... thanks for sharing it!!

we all have our own tricks/methods of doing our work

Don't we though!?
I think it depends on how one's mind organizes info as to which methods work best for each person.

My bookmarks list is so crowded it runs off the bottom of the screen (in spite of dozens of folders and subfolders) it got so bad that it was often easier just to "google" what I was looking for rather than find it again in my bookmarks! I have now started a new bookmarks list on my iGoogle homepage specifically (and only) for links I find useful when combining (will share when it is complete).

Here's how I usually set up my desktop for combining:

When I am combining from an author's combine/separate list that is so long that it takes a while to load (such as Isaac Asimov's) - rather than navigate away from the page (such as by clicking "see work" etc.) I have a second browser window open to LT's "Search" page - when I am looking for other copies to combine I open the work from the search page and combine there instead.

I also keep a Word Document small window open that contains my notes for how to do things in LT (like manually "never" authors and imbed links in posts) and use it to keep track of work numbers or other notes while combining. I also have a list of frequently used Disambiguation notices in the Word Document so I can just copy/paste them where appropriate. Example:

If your book appears on this page: using a more complete author name will enable your book to be associated with other copies of the same work and other works by the same author.

(Used on last name only or Initial+Last Name author pages.)

My bookmarks list is so crowded it runs off the bottom of the screen (in spite of dozens of folders and subfolders) it got so bad that it was often easier just to "google" what I was looking for rather than find it again in my bookmarks!

Same; but Firefox 3.1 makes it much easier - typing in the URL bar searches your bookmarks, and you can use tags(!)

When I am combining from an author's combine/separate list that is so long that it takes a while to load (such as Isaac Asimov's) - rather than navigate away from the page (such as by clicking "see work" etc.)
I never navigate away from any page; I always middle-click to open every page in a new tab, and kill the current one when I'm done with it. (For LT talk, I go down the "your groups" list opening a tab for every thread I'm interested in in advance. The problem is, sometimes my browser crashes, and although it reloads all the tabs when it restarts, I lose the read/unread information :( )

Pasting the following from the Norton Critical Editions thread on BarkingMatt's suggestion:

"Just to get it straight in my head, does that mean that the general Combiners!/Tim et al consensus is that Norton Critical Editions should be separate from them main work and that they should also be a separate category to other heavily annotated/supplemented editions? Not implying any criticism of that, just trying to get the picture clear before I do anything ...."

Comments/thoughts?

Personally I would say yes.

The annotations make it different from the base work.
Each critical work, annotated work, study guide should be different from each other as the annotations and notes (which are the things that prevent it being merged with the main work) are going to differ markedly dependant on who did the annotation/study guide and whomever it is aimed at.

For annotated editions, and to some extent for other categories which we normally separate, I think the number of owners matters. If two people have the base work and two others have two different annotated editions, the connection because of owning the work is more important than purity of combining,

Cross posted from another thread in this group:

excerpt

It looks as though the "Dog Lover's Mysteries" series page is actually encompassing TWO series by that name:
http://www.librarything.com/series/Dog%20Lover's%20Mysteries
This should probably be split into two Series - something like:
Dog Lover's Mysteries (Conant)
and
Dog Lover's Mysteries (Cleary)

Do we have a consensus on how to title same-name-but-different-series series?

Edited to add:

Apparently I am having difficulty copying a link that includes an apostrophe...can't seem to get it to work - you can find the series by going to this author page:
http://www.librarything.com/author/conantsusan
and selecting "Dog Lover's Mysteries" from the series links on the right.

From a thread in Recommended Site Improvements -
http://www.librarything.com/topic/52412

I often have to stop myself from beginning a big combining project if I don't have time to do it in one sitting. Instead I break it into smaller projects and complete them one at a time.

The mental rules I have set for myself:

1.) Don't make a mess you can't clean up before you leave. (such as separating all copies of a work - a manual "explode" and leaving the combining for the next day)

2.) Post disambiguation notices "as-you-go." (i.e. as soon as you have identified the problem rather than when you have sorted-out the problem)

3.) When separating - keep track of "orphans" and make sure you PUT THEM BACK (especially necessary for orphans with odd authors that don't swing back to the author page you are working on)

Expanded explanation to illustrate above:

When I am working on a work that has multiple works combined that should be separated - for example an entry where Volumes 1, 2, 3 of a work are all combined with the three volume set (a common scenario).

FIRST I will post a disambiguation notice on the work that "Individual volumes should not be combined with the complete set or different volumes of the same set." (To comply with my Rule 2 above - posting disambiguation notices as a problem is identified)

THEN I will separate out all the Volume ones - generally by going to the editions page and using the Google Toolbar "search this page" function to pick out a word/ISBN that is unique to that volume.

If, when separating, I see that the separated work is likely to fly off into never-land I copy the work number into a temporary word file so I can retrieve it. (To comply with my Rule 3 above).

Then I will combine all the "Volume 1"s (including the orphans) into a new work and post the disambiguation notice

THEN I will move on to volume 2, etc.

That way, if I only get Vol 1 done - I have still left the page better than I found it and not left a bunch of odds and ends for someone else to clean up (to comply with my Rule 1).

Hopefully by posting the disambiguation notices and separating out at least one volume some other combiner can come along and see what I was trying to accomplish and pick up where I left off. (OR, when I come back to it later I can see where I was.)

Just a tip I just noticed -

If you click on one of the author names that has been combined with the main author you get taken to a page that offers that suggests "Go ahead and separate this author if you think this in error." (That is not the part I just noticed.)

Disambiguation notices appear at the top of the sub-author page BUT (here is the part I just figured out) - You have to add them BEFORE you combine!
(or uncombine them, add the disambiguation notice, then recombine)

Example where I think this information is useful:

http://www.librarything.com/author.php?author=moorehenrykuttnerand&norefer=2

Lilithcat - this is so that you know that THIS particular combination of two authors into one author does NOT need to be "nevered" (unlike almost every other example of combining multiple author names with a single author name)

Portia, your logical, methodical approach is a model and an inspiration. You must be a very organized person.

>63 stellarexplorer:
You made me smile! (and blush a little...)

Unfortunately my OCD tendancies (admittedly a "Combiner's" trait) are somewhat idiosyncratic...
(and paired with distinctly "pack-rat" tendancies).

The Library is organized.
The Finances are tracked and analyzed down to the penny.
My computer has spreadsheets tracking miscellaneous data out the wazoo...

BUT
The House is a Mess.
The oil in the car is NEVER changed on time.
There are miscellaneous stacks of papers everywhere waiting to be "filed."

I often think it would be useful if I could assign just a little bit of the attention to little details to...oh, say...washing the DISHES! (Which tends to only happen when I want to use one...)

Oh, well, some people have a clean house, but I have MORE BOOKS! (Categorized and alphabetical and PROPERLY COMBINED on LT, of course.)

62 How is this name different than Grant Naylor a collective name used by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor? These have been nevered.

>65 kathrynnd:
I don't know that it is different as I don't know the authors that you reference.

Perhaps it was not obvious from the disambiguation notices that Grant Naylor = Rob Grant + Doug Naylor the way that I was careful to note (? disambiguate) that Lewis Padgett = Henry Kuttner + C. L. Moore

Also please note that I am NOT advocating combining Lewis Padgett with Kuttner or Moore singly - just the combined versions.

Also - "nevering" like "combining" is done by volunteers - so it is possible that such oddities might be "nevered" by someone with good intentions but with misinformation (as many combinings are) - since the VAST MAJORITY of the time author combos should NOT be combined with single authors.

Edited to Add:

I just looked at the authors you brought up and had no problem combining Grant Naylor with the variations of Rob Grant and Doug Naylor (together). Disambiguation notices posted as for the previous (prior to combining of course).

Results can be found here:
http://www.librarything.com/author/naylorgrant

PortiaLong, I second message 63.

>67 mountebank:
It's just that combining is the perfect pasttime for the perennial procrastinator!

On another note - in the "Fix this book" thread there was a request regarding a magazine -
This thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/51179
contains some discussion that may be relevant to combiners (as well as some realia ranting).

My contribution (edited) to that thread - msg 24:
excerpted

Using "Series" for Periodicals

I think that LT would benefit from a feature that allowed one to select a "work type" (periodical, anthology, etc) that would have some standardized fields to help organize data common to those work types. Whether or not this data is importable - standardizing the Title/Date/Volume/Number info would help with searching/combining efforts.

Specifically with re: to periodicals we also have this thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/50637#...
(My contribution is message #11)

I thought I would try the "Series" approach with a periodical I came across with a small number of entries on LT.
Cobblestone: The History Magazine for Young People

I first searched for all the Cobblestone entries and entered the series for all of the ones that I was fairly certain actually were the magazine. I separated entries that contained multiple volumes as one work ( Edited to add: tagging the separated works with the series name as they were being separated so as not to lose track of them - per Rule 3 msg 61). I then combined all the duplicates and put (Vol #.#) order numbers where I could discern them -the results can be seen here: (scroll to bottom to see the ones with volume numbers)

http://www.librarything.com/series/Cobblestone%3A+The+History+Magazine+for+Young...

I think that this illustrates somewhat the confusion that is created by NOT having a "format" for such works. Some people enter the Title of the Magazine and the Vol/No. but NOT the specific sub-title of the issue, some enter the sub-title but don't include the vol/no and may or may not include the title of the magazine as author (all of which makes combining a nightmare).

My hope is that some minority of the owners of the issues will see the Series link on the work page and investigate and perhaps be interested enough to add the missing data and enrich LT as a whole. (Most will not, that's fine too.) I think that many people, when presented with a form, will enter the information they were going to enter anyway in the suggested format (and they, of course, are also free to ignore it and enter it any old way they like - as they do now.)

I personally have left my periodicals to the end in the hopes that the powers-that-be elect to institute a more consistant periodicals entry form. (My periodicals consist of old SF from the 1950s and 1960s - of which there are TONS of individual entries in LT - I know once I start entering mine that the overwhelming task of combining and "series" ing everyone elses will CONSUME me for months.)

Not everyone wants to catalogue each individual issue of a periodical so I think that the option of a MegaWork is useful. So someone could enter. "National Geographic" - set - year: 1998" and still have it associated with the periodical series "National Geographic."

Edited to correct mangled link noted in #69 (must be the copy/pasting.)

I like the idea of Series for Periodicals, and did take a look at Cobblestone. Then, I thought, the magazine I most want to see individual issues in LT is Parabola. So, I changed the address line to 'Parabola', while looking at the Cobbblestone series page, and it did come up with about 10-12 issues. So, I guess I could start putting my issues of Parabola into LT, and maybe retrieve some 50 issues that I have given to my sister over the decades (unless I can get her to join LT also).

I would like to see periodicals handled somewhat like they are in brick and mortar library catalogs: a single "work" for a perodical, then allow a list of holdings (i.e., Vol 3 Number 4 through vol 16 number 12). I know in my case entering each periodical individually would be onerous, and would also distort the "library size" statistics.

>71 setnahkt:
I maintain my periodicals as single works and take care to separate them when they become combined.

#71

That may be so but it doesn't work for me.

I want to catalogue my Interzone (a SF magazine) issues so that I know what the contents are of each issue, and be able to search by story or author name.

Also for some other magazines I have very gappy coverage. Just having a list of holdings would be as onerous as adding individual issues.

For certain periodicals, I would like to have separate entries, because of their covers.

Libraries can correct what holdings they have in a series much more easly then we can at LT at the present time. (We can only put comments or tags on a single work or title).

Kathrynnd posted an opinion in the "fix it" thread - that may bear some discussion.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/52612#983295

snippit -
...I separated out my copy and it will remain a singleton thank you. (Please read her post for complete quote)

Kathrynnd - I can understand your frustration with books appearing on the "wrong" author page or bad combinings and a desire to keep your books unpoluted by bad info. However - here is my personal take on the subject:

From "Library Things Concepts" found here:
http://www.librarything.com/concepts.php#works

The purpose of works is social. Books that a library catalog considers distinct can nevertheless be a single LibraryThing "work." A work brings together all different copies of a book, regardless of edition, title variation, or language.

So ... while there is nothing to stop you from "separating" out your copy of a work, there is also nothing to keep a well-meaning combiner from coming along and recombining it again.

LT says you can enter your books any way you wish and nothing that anyone else does can change YOUR PERSONAL (i.e. book level) data. But the social aspects of LT depend on the "works" concept - that is what it was designed for (and why we have "works" and not "editions" - at least not yet) - and this data is collaborative.

From the heading on the combine/separate page:
At LibraryThing everyone is a librarian, lending a hand to improve their own catalogs, and others' too.

This is a good thread to discuss this sort of thing and build consensus as to what constitutes GOOD combining techniques.

If two books have substantially the SAME material - they are, by LTs definition, the same work. So the fact that someone wrote a new forward and that other people put that forward's writer as the "author" doesn't change the fact that it may still be the same "work."

Just my 2 (or 24) cents - obviously some (many, most?) will disagree.

kathrynnd, I understand your opinion on this & in most situations I agree... and possibly this one, but I'm not familiar with the work(s).

I have two suggested solutions/compromises and others may/can chime in on this too.

One is to force your author to the top, so that the 'winning' author/editor is yours. If you want me to do it, I will... just PM me on my profile page.... or post it here... there are others who can do it, too.

The second solution/compromise is to post a disambiguation notice for the edition you have.

Now I'll give you a similar situation that I 'struggle' with.... I strongly prefer to see Samuel L. Clemens as the author of the books he wrote. Yes, he wrote them under the pseudonym of Mark Twain, but I prefer that books are listed/cataloged under the author's real name, if known.

So, my copies of Huck & Tom & assorted anthologies have Samuel L Clemens listed as the author, NOT Mark Twain.... I could try & make Clemens float to the top, but it would literally take months to do & someone could still force it back.

So, I'm stuck... but when I bring up my books in my library, they say Samuel L Clemens... but when I go to the Samuel L Clemens author page they aren't there.... they are on the Mark Twain page.... that I cannot change.... (but I'd like to!!!)

In the case of the Science Fiction anthology discussed in the "fix this book" thread, they should be combined... it is the sources of the book data that has the differing authorship/editor information. There is no difference in the books (to my knowledge... I don't have that sci-fi anthology, but I have others... many others) so even though the editor information differs, they should be combined. I also believe that in the sci-fi case, there are shared ISBN information between copies that list different editors. and the information can be verified using worldcat.org or (shudder) amazon.com ...

I hope this helps the situation... and my small (but wordy) explanation.

Thanks for your comments PortiaLong and Skittles. I have much I would like to add but don't have time tonight.

First I should say that my Elizabeth Driver author was probably not the best example of my author concerns. I don't usually care what author name rises to the top on a work page. One of the really nice things about LT is that usually I don't even see the bad choices in my catalog. It was when I discovered my cookbook as part of a cookbook series published by Whitecap Books with Elizabeth Driver as the series editor that I pulled my copy, and after careful consideration deleted the Publisher's series too.

Skittles my philosophy re Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens is the exact opposite to yours, but that may be because I am older and remember when school and public libraries had Mark Twain under his real name Samuel L. Clemens instead of the name printed on the book title page. I graduated from Library School the spring of 1967 just before the turnaround with the publication of the first AACR. (Ronald Hagler, my cataloguing professor, was on the Canadian Steering Committee). Not that I am any cataloguing authority today, I haven't worked in a library for years, but when I first started entering my books into LT I wanted to do the thing right, and that meant using the name the author meant to be used for a book, the name on the title page.

Another thing that brought on my rant this evening is that someone on the multiple author name thread mentioned that David Cohen is five different authors and wrote a very nice disambiguation notice. Which was great, except for the last little bit which sort of suggested, maybe, or maybe it was the way I am reading these messages these days, that maybe it might be better to make sure you have the right one, but the books are published with the shortened name, if WorldCat libraries use the shortened names, or at least some, why would we suggest LTers use the fuller name for an author to associate a book with other copies now that books can be combined by ISBN?

>77 kathrynnd:
why would we suggest LTers use the fuller name for an author to associate a book with other copies now that books can be combined by ISBN?

Does the difficulty not lie with the LT concept of author pages? To use a personal bugbear as example, look at John Piper.
http://www.librarything.com/author/piperjohn
The prolific Christian author collars the page with a photo and CK data while the 4 other known John Pipers languish in the shade of a disambiguation notice. I would be much happier to use the full name* of the British painter and illustrator - John Egerton Piper - so that he could take his books off to a page of his own.

*even though he never, AFAIK, used it on a title page.

Should there be pictures and CK data on such pages at all?

> 79: Strictly, probably not. But I would only find it an objection if there are several writers who are all about equally represented on such a page.

For example, should we rob Shakespeare of Homer of their information and pictures if somebody else wrote a book under that name? Okay, a somewhat absurd example, but I think not.

> 77 It was when I discovered my cookbook as part of a cookbook series published by Whitecap Books with Elizabeth Driver as the series editor that I pulled my copy, and after careful consideration deleted the Publisher's series too.

It sounds to me like the basic problem is that the work was listed as being part of a publisher's series, when only some editions of the work were actually part of the series. This is exactly the problem with publishers' series and the reason they aren't allowed in such cases. I would opine that the solution isn't to separate the books, but (as you did) remove it from the series.

Edited to fix typo.

I was going to type a long-winded explanation of where I stand on the combination issue raised in post #75, but then I realised that basically Portia has already stated my position in the tail end of that post ... so I'm just going to say, I agree with Portia in #75 ;)

A discussion of Canonical Titles came up in this thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/54529

I am reposting my contribution here for future debate:

Canonical Titles

My personal philospophy when it comes to canonical titles:

(after having made one miserable foray into just such a dual-naming (US/UK) issue - tried to make everyone happy and just ended up starting an argument)

1. If the title that gets elected is AT ALL reasonable - I leave it alone...
2. If the title that gets elected is a mash up - I separate the works with the mash up title and recombine until something better gets elected and then - I leave it alone...
3. If FORCED to add a canonical title - I copy/paste the one that has been entered by the MOST LTers who have catalogued it
4. One of the only times I feel compelled to enter a canonical name is when the elected name is not in English (since I am LTing on the English language site).

The problem is that once a canonical name has been entered - you end up with some bugginess if it later gets deleted.

FYI: Some put the title "The Demon's Mistress" as the canonical title for the Anthology "In Praise of Younger Men". (canonical title now removed)

http://www.librarything.com/work/39799

Whilst that book has the 'majority' author of Jo Beverly and her contribution to the book is "The Demon's Mistress" that does not mean that ALL owners of the book want their book listed as only being "The Demon's Mistress".

If someone wants there book or story listed as "The Demon's Mistress" then they can make/create a work with that title & NOT list the ISBN (which creates links/relationships.)

Books that are anthologies should not be listed under only one story in the anthology.... or if you list the one story, it should not be combined with books that also have other stories in them.

(cross posted in the how to combine thread)
discussion can be continued here.

This is the disambiguation notice that I posted for the book/anthology:

Please do not combine anthologies with individual stories in the book.
Please do not put individual stories as the Canonical Title of the anthology.

You can't just remove the canonical name though. There is a bug where once a CN has been added if it is then removed the CN for the book becomes a blank. Until the bug is fixed you should change the CN to what you think it should be.

#86: good point... I hadn't replaced the CT with anything & the title remained the story instead of the book... I will go & change it to the anthology name.

Thanks!!

87> I saw that too, but I think it's a caching issue that the title on the work page hadn't changed. If you had seen the bug there would have been no title.

There is also an issues of the canonical title not "sticking" unless you re-save it after a combination - I brought it up in the Bug Collector's thread here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/53981

So if we play this out - once a work has a canonical title it must always have a canonical title or risk the "no title" bug, BUT if a work has a canonical title and gets combined with another work (with or without a canonical title) the canonical title doesn't stay dominant unless you re-save after combining.

Arrg!

Hence, my reluctance to muck around much with canonical title - as I outlined in 83.

cross post from the fix it thread:

when I find a book with multiple authors that cannot regularly be combined with the same book listed with a single author, I will temporarily combine the authors so I can combine the books & THEN I will separate the authors. I will always separate the authors in a case like this..

The debate about combining of psuedonyms continues...this came up in the "Fix It" thread - searching talk reveals that there is really no consensus. skittles and kathrynnd touched on it in 76/77 (skittles - don't hate me - I put "Mark Twain" on the book in my library but would be perfectly happy to find the "work" on the "Samuel Clemens" page)

My contribution on the Fix it thread:

On Pseudonyms:

I read through some previous debates and it doesn't seem as though there is any real consensus. My preference is the opposite of bernsad's - I would prefer to see all of the works by a (physical, real) person on one author page with the pseudonyms noted in the CK - I put whichever author name I feel is most appropriate (i.e. the one on "my" copy) in my own library but would like to see them "collected" on a single author page.

For instance - Heinlein wrote under a number of pseudonyms that are not particularly well-known. It seems that he later acknowledged all of these works as his own (republishing them later under his own name) so keeping the names separate doesn't really give you any additional info. This seems to be the case for many SF writers (my preferred genre) so it seems reasonable to me for these to combine these pseudonyms with the "real" author name.

It seems as though other authors treated their pseudonyms differently - since I don't own/read those authors I suppose I have no opinion.

Some instances where I think that pseudonyms should NOT be combined is when the psuedonym is for TWO DIFFERENT authors writing together (i.e. A writes as A, B writes as B, but A+B writes as C - C should have their own page) or when a pseudonym could represent any one of a number of people (i.e. A or B or C has all written under X for a series - X should have their own page).

Just my preferences...

84>
In this vein, I've run into several omnibus publications in which the owner has listed the individual books separately and they have been combined with their original titles but with the omnibus ISBN.
Am I correnct in separating and adding a disambiguation notice? And if there were no ISBN listed, would you combine?

92: Absolutely correct in separating. If someone wants to catalog the individual books or stories within an anthology or omnibus, that's fine, but they shouldn't be combined with any anthology or omnibus that they appear in. They can, of course, be combined with other works that consist of only the same content, i.e. if the book was also published on its own, or if the short story was cataloged by someone else (even if their copy was published in a different anthology).

I'd say it's patently wrong to assign the ISBN of the anthology or omnibus to any individual work within it -- the books/stories contained within the omnibus/anthology do not have their own ISBNs; that ISBN refers to the collection, and if they're going to be cataloged separately they should be listed with no ISBN. (Only referring to the works published in a collection; if published on their own of course they can have an ISBN.)

I think pseudonyms and actual names should be combined. First of all, you can now enter legal name and other names - in searchable common knowledge fields - on any author page.

But let me give an example I feel strongly about:

People will enter "Alice in Wonderland" as by "Lewis Carroll" - in my view rightly so, because that is the pseudonym the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson chose to publish his fiction under - or rather: most of it - some had already been published before he adopted the penname.

After his death some of the stuff he published under his real name got republished as by "Lewis Carroll" - even his very serious works on mathematics and logic. That's understandable since the penname is much more famous than the real. On the other hand, some people knowing that LC is a pseudonym will "correct" the author name of the Alice books (and such) to Dodgson.

Because the penname is much more famous, it's unavoidable that that's the name that floats to the top for most of his works. So Lewis Carroll it is, for the non-fiction too, though I would also be okay with Dodgson.

But separating Lewis Carroll from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson would only create chaos.

>93 r.orrison: I read your post - as well as 91 and 92 - and agreed with all of them. Then I got to thinking..

Suppose a publisher decides to print in one volume Household's Rogue Male, Buchan's The Island of Sheep and Sapper's Bulldog Drummond - entitled, say, Tales of Derring-do. As I understand the purpose of LT 'works', an important feature is to bring together readers - or their libraries - of the same piece of writing. As my hypothetical omnibus is unlikely to be a big seller, I need to be connected to other readers of each of the three stories to get the most out of recommendations, etc. Now the only unique identifier of my copy of each story is the ISBN it shares with the other two. If I choose to list each story as a different book in my list without an ISBN they are likely to be combined into the main work and no-one will be any the wiser. Is this better, worse or even different from including the ISBN? At least it can be seen as something different and, presumably, will show up as an omnibus if the ISBN is searched for. It would certainly be better if the title included something like (part of omnibus).

For myself, I would forgo connections and list the book as one omnibus but others might not.

95: If you catalog each story from the collection separately, by title, without an ISBN, they're much more likely to be combined with the individual books of the same title (from the Author's Combine/Separate page). If you catalog them separately but with ISBN of the collection, they are likely to be accidentally combined with the collection (from the work's Editions page), which will not connect you with owners of the separate volumes.

If you want the social connection with owners of the individual volumes, catalog them separately without ISBN.

If you want the social connection with owners of the omnibus, catalog it with its ISBN.

If you want your library to reflect the volumes on your bookshelf, catalog the omnibus with its ISBN.

You could also do both... catalog the omnibus and the individual stories.

There has been talk of being able to say "this work contains these works" allowing social connections between stories and collections... It'll probably be ready some time after collections. Or maybe after the system for separating authors of the same name.

>97 Scorbet:

Even worse than the individual work being accidentally combined with the collection, is that the three separate works may be combined together as one big super work, as they would now have an ISBN in common.

>97 Scorbet: : Agreed - that's the really scary scenario, and there's always some "infernal idiot" out there who will make it so.

>92 moekane: and subsequent.

This is how I hand the omnibus/included works issue -

From my Profile:
WORKS OF WORKS
(note - infiniteletters has expanded this into their "Division Rules" )

Anthology = collection of short works by different authors - editor listed as "(Editor), Last First"
ex: Tomorrow, The Stars edited by Heinlein Robert A. (Editor)

Collection = collection of short works by ONE author
ex: Expanded Universe by Robert A. Heinlein

Omnibus = collection of longer works by ONE author each of which has been published by itself
ex: A Heinlein Trio by Robert A. Heinlein

Inclusion = longer work included in Omnibus (or Anthology/Collection) which may have been published by itself
ex: The Puppet Masters (included in A Heinlein Trio) by Robert A. Heinlein
(note - in my library, inclusions will have default blank cover)

the "inclusions" only have title/author data with a note in comments as to which omnibus/anthology/collection they are in - no ISBNs to confuse the combining issue.

I have not yet catalogued all the short stories/novellas - with a few few exceptions (someone has already entered them, they are part of a "double", they are a story in a "series" that I would like to include on the series page) - they would then have "short story" or "novella" in brackets in the title.

When I want to look at my library on LT for the books I physically have on my shelves I screen out the tag "inclusion" (as well as "dno" = for do not own). When collectons finally gets here I hope to put the inclusions in their own place.

Re: anthologies, multi-work works:

see #85 above.

If you find a mis-combined work, add a disambiguation notice to the Common Knowledge (look on the main page, and scroll down to the disambiguation notice).

please add a disambiguation notice to BOTH the anthology/collection/omnibus and the individual story/work.

a suggested format might be:

Please do not combine this anthology, Tales of Edgar Allen Poe, with individual stories from the book.

for stories:
Please do not combine this individual story, The Tell Tale Heart, with any of the anthologies that it may have come from. Please keep this title separate so that other members who have this story listed individually so that they may enjoy the connections & recommendations that will occur.

Re: Pseudonyms & Author "real names"

I've stated my opinion about the pseudonym / real name conundrum... as PortiaLong has referred to above.

Since I list my copy of The Family Mark Twain as written by S.L. Clemens I see it that way in my library. BUT I also want to connect with those members who list SLC as Mark Twain... They are the same person.

SO, IMHO, MT should be combined with SLC.

The only time pseudonyms should not be combined is when more than one person shares one of the names.

disambiguation notices in all places, of course

Regarding Pseudonyms: I was the one who brought it up on the "Fix It" thread. My main query was whether Lemony Snicket should be combined with Daniel Handler, the real person, and if so, what should the "name" of the author be?
I suppose I do agree with what Portia and Skittles have said, but I would like to know if people think the Canonical Author name should be switched to Daniel Handler (it is currently Lemony Snicket) like SLC is the Canonical Author name for SLC/MT.

>102 yue:: For SLC / MT canonical name is Twain, Mark - legal name is Clemens, Samuel Langhorne - other names etc.

The point is that canonical name is supposed to be the most recognizable name, not the most correct.

Since I know squat about Lemony Snicket / Daniel Handler I can't give any opinion there - though I must admit I had at least heard of Snicket.

If, upon combining, the name that floats to the top is at all reasonable I would avoid entering a Canonical Name at all - that way the name that takes precedence is likely to be the one that the most people have used. (An informal "vote" if you will).

If you must choose one, my personal vote would be for Lemony Snicket - since that is the name most likely to be recognized by MOST people.

(On the SLC/MT actually I would go the same way - while MOST people - certainly the overwhelming majority of US LTers - know that MT is a penname for SLC - EVERYONE has heard of Mark Twain.)

But my personal preference for which name is dominant is greatly overshadowed by my preference that the names be combined. (Which is still and only my personal preference...)

...re-posting (edit for some reason not working) to add. Tim apparently is OK with Mark Twain as the canonical - per the CK history:
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php?item=59&type=2
- he was recently there and doing some CK entry and did not see fit to change the canonical name.

Just a tidbit.

I'm fine with SLC showing up as MT... it is just that in 'my' library, it will show as SLC... even though I have a copy of The Family Mark Twain... it is MY preference for MY library.

BUT I do think that the names should be combined... which in this case, they are combined.

Do I think that Lemony Snicket should be under the writer's 'real' name? No, but I do think that the author's real name should be combined under LS.

Yes, I have opinions about "stuff" but I don't expect everyone to agree with those opinions. But when it comes to how I catalog MY books... they are cataloged MY way. (but they can't be seen & I'm fine with that... less arguments!)

Tim apparently is OK with Mark Twain as the canonical - per the CK history

I would say definitely "okay" with it, since he used it as an example of how things should be done in the discussion on Canonical, Legal, etc Names:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/49961#891657

I just spent a few minutes re-separating out Daniel P. Bolger's seven works after someone combined them all into one work, in spite of the clear differences in titles and in ISBNs. I also tracked down who did it and found that it was brand new member - membership dated 20 Jan 2009 -- who has listed no books from their own library and has an empty profile.

So, anyone else been finding what appear to be either saboteurs or anarchists?

Robert A. Mosher

My current project has me wading through a lot of British theology and related books. I keep coming up to hymnals. British hymnals are almost always published in two or three different editions. They are basically the same, but there will be a 'Words Edition' and a 'Melody Edition' and/or a ' (Full) Music Edition'. They have the same hymns with the same numbers, the same words, but varying amounts of music. Should these be combined or left separate?

>109 MarthaJeanne: I would separate them, but that is an expression of personal opinion rather than 'advice' ;-)

They have separate ISBNs, so in general they are separated at present.

My feeling is that they a separate works but since the difference is only in the non-text part of the books I'm not too sure about it.

I agree, they should be separate works. You wouldn't combine the libretto of an operetta or musical with an edition which included basic piano accompaniment with an edition featuring the entire orchestration.

Unrelated to recent posts:

I am cleaning up my "starred" list and came across this nice post Lorax wrote explaining basic combining in this thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/47414

Just trying to pull all our efforts together (as per intent in message 1)

PS. Skittles - We are past post 100 now- time for a "compiling" or should we wait until 200.

you are right, we should compile...

To all:
Please post the best of this thread in the new thread.

This thread is now closed!

The updated thread is now at:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/57164