zero-copy separations?

There seem to be quite a few zero-copy separations recently, but no disambiguation notices to explain why the two shouldn't be (re)combined. If data is causing problems, as in cases of title-isbn mismatch, then it would be helpful put a disambiguation notice to explain why they were separated and shouldn't be combined (regardless of number of copies).

If the only reason they're being separated out is that they have "no current copies", then they're likely to be recombined.

Edited for typo

I've separated some, but only if/when they were attached to the wrong main work. I wouldn't mind seeing them getting recombined into the proper work though - and if it doesn't take too much work I do so myself.

That's fine, I think, if they were attached to the wrong work; that's separating for the same reasons we'd separate any number of copies. I agree about trying to recombine them into the proper work if possible.

Ditto on 2 although as long as I don;t lose them, I;ve been combining them back up with the correct works. Did a bunch of Who wants to punch Regis, I mean Who wants to be a millionaire works last night.

I probably should have been clearer in the first post: what I've noticed are a bunch of zero-copy separations of books that are apparently the same. I notice them first of all because the titles are the same, then clicking on them I see that one of them is a zero-copy work, but otherwise apparently the same as the work from which it's been separated. What I'm wondering is whether there is some good reason - not just that these have "no current copies" - that these are separated, and if so, whether this could be clearly indicated in the disambiguation notice.

Well, if you;re looking any that I did, my plan is to combine them back in under the correct title/ ISBN/ etc.

I hope you've not seen any of mine that I;ve screwed up. I don't like leaving an floating record that should be combined, even if it;s zero copies.

edit: Although I just noticed someone separating unabridged audio books from the main works. *sigh*

#5

I separate copies that are attached to the wrong works (especially multiple volume works) and they can sometimes be zero copies. I use the helper's log to be sure I've recombined everything back to the proper work.

And I agree with #6 - I don't like leaving floating records either.

I separate any that I find combined into the wrong works. I recombine any that I find showing up as possible combinations on edition pages, but I don't go to any further effort to track them down.

Sometimes what looks in the log like separating a zero-copy work from an identical work is in reality more complicated. If there's a hodge-podge of works all combined together (due to a sharing a long first title segment, for example), and you start separating at the top of the list, then the title can change half-a-dozen times before you're left with the desired single work in the mix. Depending on the order you do it in, you can end up with quite a few separations which are listed in the log as separating zero-copy works from identical works, when in fact they're both being separated from some bigger mix-up.

I don't spend any effort in chasing down zero-copy editions because I feel that, for me, putting the time required for that into (for example) splitting authors instead is far more productive.

Well, you can't actually see whether something was zero-copy in the separators log. What you can see is the titles of the works that are separated. Then, clicking on the work page, you can see if the separated work has zero copies, but also whether or not the work page suggests it's really a different work from the one it was separated from.

There's a whole bunch of cases on the log, though, where there are apparently identical titles separated out from what seems to be the same work. If you click on the work pages, there's nothing to indicate that they're a different work, and there aren't any other (different) books being separated out from that work, so it doesn't look like it's part of a big clean-up. Obviously it's fine to separate out a zero-copy edition if it's combined with the wrong work, just as it would be if it was a multiple copy edition. But with some I've seen on the log (not all, of course) I can't see any obvious rationale, except that they are zero-copy editions.

I see what you're getting at. Weird.

Mine were a case of wrestling with bad data. Some works just refused to combine with the correct author unless certain zero copies were separated and re-attached...some odd form of "author to the top," I think.

Maybe the zero-copy thing is just distracting here actually. What would be helpful is, when separating out apparently identical books from each other, to leave a disambiguation notice that explains why they are not the same work and why they shouldn't be combined (if indeed they aren't the same work, or if they have some problematic data that messes up the system).

Here's an example that doesn't involve zero-copy works, but where I also can't figure out any reason why they were separated:
Separated After the Rain from After the Rain
Separated After The Rain from After the Rain
Separated After the rain from After the Rain
Separated Na de regens from After the Rain

10 - Yeah, when they're separated but then reattached, it's pretty clear, because both work links direct to the same page. The ones I don't understand are the ones that aren't just a temporary fix or work-around but remain separated despite apparently being the same work.

12 - Yep. A disambiguation notice would definitely be appropriate in those cases.

I separated a bunch recently to fix a series that had been merged into one book. I tried to recombine the zero copies to the correct work, but some disappeared on me. I'm sure they eventually turned up, though. Somewhere.

Little question about zero-copy editions... On many Nancy Drew books, in the combination potentials part of the editions page, it'll show tons of zero-copy editions (often for other ND books). But when I go to the main work it won't show those in the combination potentials.

Example, to make it a little clearer: http://www.librarything.com/work/38536/editions/20787290 (The editions page for The Secret of the Old Clock) shows "The Haunted Bridge by Carolyn Keene (0 copies)" under Potential work combinations. However, the editions page for The Haunted Bridge main-work doesn't show that. It's confusing me.