New Series System: Calls for Help!

Ce sujet est poursuivi sur New Series System: Calls for Help! #2.

DiscussionsLibrarything Series

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

New Series System: Calls for Help!

1gilroy
Juin 10, 2020, 3:43 pm

I'm creating this thread for people working in the new Series system. This is a place where someone can post a link to the series in question and ask for help.

2gilroy
Modifié : Juin 10, 2020, 3:45 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/10906/Polesotechnic-League
Anyone familiar enough with this series to answer a question? I think I have five series that can combine into this one, but I'm not 100% positive.

3amanda4242
Juin 10, 2020, 3:48 pm

Thanks for starting this thread!

Can someone take a look at Hellboy? I put everything I didn't know where to place in an Uncategorized group.

4yoyogod
Juin 10, 2020, 4:31 pm

If anyone has the time to sort it out, there's this:

https://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=thunderstorm+books+black+voltage&...

It's a publisher series that had a few entries mistakenly listed as a regular series and quite a few entries that are floating off individually because a user entered them without putting the volume number in parentheses.

5scott_beeler
Modifié : Juin 10, 2020, 9:16 pm

>3 amanda4242: Hellboy looks excellent from my knowledge. Which isn't enough to know where the last stragglers are best placed.

>4 yoyogod: Fun times. I'll see if I can go through some of these now. EDITED: I think I've cleaned up all the loose ends there.

6amanda4242
Juin 10, 2020, 11:08 pm

>5 scott_beeler: Well, then we'll just have to leave it for an expert.

Anybody know anything about Solomon Kane?

7andyl
Juin 11, 2020, 4:23 am

>2 gilroy:

The isfdb page for The Technic History series (which contains all of Polesotechnic League) http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?698

I think the core 7 books is correct, the problem comes with the Collections and Selections. For example I think The Van Rijn Method is all Polesotechnic League stories (but I haven't checked).

8gilroy
Modifié : Juin 11, 2020, 11:30 am

I'm pondering a combine but don't want to until I ask questions:
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/24940/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2115/Advanced-Dungeons-and-Dragons-2nd-Edit...
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/19265/AD-D-2nd-Core-Rulebook
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/17527/AD-D-2nd-Edition-Dungeon-Master-Refer...
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/5842/Complete-Handbook

With the way the new series can sort and group and organize, do we really need every iteration of RPG grouping out there now? Can we consolidate down to a few? Using the above as an example, could we drop down to one for the overall AD&D books, then one for 1st edition and one for 2nd edition, maybe have the novels have their own, without all the extra small series here there and everywhere?

ETA: I'd be okay with each subworld (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Placescape, Dark Sun, etc) to have their own series, since the core books would change.

9andyl
Juin 11, 2020, 12:41 pm

>8 gilroy:

Well the Complete-Handbook series is definitely a proper series and should not be combined with the others.

10gilroy
Juin 11, 2020, 1:08 pm

>9 andyl: Actually, it is just a player handbook supplement, not a series of its own, from the covers themselves.

11shadrach_anki
Juin 11, 2020, 1:28 pm

>8 gilroy:

It seems like some amount of consolidation should be possible when it comes to RPG books. The trick is figuring out what makes the most sense. Looking at the AD&D series you've listed....

1. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - Seems to be almost entirely French editions, which may or may not need to be combined with other works. I don't know if the content is identical across languages. It also appears to be a mix of 1st and 2nd edition books.

2. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition - Seems to be the primary listing for AD&D 2nd Edition in English, and is the one I would likely focus on as the main series.

3. AD&D 2nd Core Rulebook - Should probably be combined into #2, and should ostensibly be the Core group of that series. Doesn't need to be separated into its own little thing.

4. AD&D 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Reference - I would keep this as a separate series, listing it as a sub-series of #2, and create a group in #2 that contains these books. Yeah, there is a bit of duplication there, but with nine volumes having a specific focus it really feels more like a sub-series than just another group.

5. Complete Handbook - As with #4, I would keep this as a separate series, listed as a sub-series of #2 (possibly changing the name to indicate more clearly that it is AD&D), and create a group in #2 for these particular books.

When it comes to subworlds and/or campaign settings, I think there should be separate series for each, linked in some way to the associated RPG system series. Continuing with the AD&D examples, I would keep the Birthright Campaign Setting as its own series, listed as a sub-series of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition.

For the novels set in the various Dungeons & Dragons worlds, I vote for separating them from the RPG materials when it comes to series. Set relationships between the series in some way, put in descriptions to indicate the linkages, but it's just a mess when they are all combined. Especially when it isn't clear what bits are novels and what bits are RPG modules or manuals.

12andyl
Juin 11, 2020, 1:32 pm

>10 gilroy:

Yep they are just rules supplements but they are an identifiable publisher's series and should IMO be kept that way. That publisher's series can be a sub-series of the main series.

As for campaign settings then I would totally expect Birthright to be treated as its own series. as >11 shadrach_anki: says

13gilroy
Modifié : Juin 11, 2020, 1:57 pm

>11 shadrach_anki: Those were honestly the first few that came up in my series listing. There are MANY more than what I showed.

I will say, AD&D did have two releases, so I suppose we could break them down as such within one series. Then link to each edition having their own unique series. Maybe leaving only the campaign Core book in with the supplements of the main RPG series, then using that as the link to create the subseries.

I have no problem making the campaign settings their own unique series.

>12 andyl: Okay, I did more research in my own books, and I can see it is its own series. So okay leaving that loose.

I said I was good with each campaign world being their own series.

14shadrach_anki
Juin 11, 2020, 2:05 pm

I can already tell you that the Forgotten Realms series https://www.librarything.com/nseries/129/Forgotten-Realms is going to take a lot of work. Right now it's an alphabetically ordered mishmash of novels and campaign setting and adventure modules, and I'm honestly not sure what should constitute the Core and what sits outside of it.

The new series system is also turning up more work combinations that need to be made (or at least work relationships that need to be set).

15gilroy
Juin 11, 2020, 2:07 pm

Youch. I thought the campaign setting was bad:
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/4124/Forgotten-Realms-Campaign-Setting

And I've only barely poked at it.

16amanda4242
Juin 11, 2020, 2:19 pm

I'm thinking it would be a good idea to make announcements advertising this thread in some of the specialized groups. Members of groups like The Green Dragon and Science Fiction Fans would almost certainly have a lot of knowledge to contribute.

17shadrach_anki
Juin 11, 2020, 2:21 pm

>15 gilroy:

Yeah, lots of work needed. Looking at the campaign setting, my inclination is to have the Core be all the core books, labeled and ordered by edition, and then dropping all the modules and supplements into edition-based groups. For the other, I'm tempted to change the title to Forgotten Realms Novels (or Stories), boot any and all modules/supplements over to the campaign setting series, and then...I don't know. Alphabetical order is a terrible way to organize things, story order is...complex (and potentially contradictory), and there isn't really a true core anyway, just a bunch of sub-series set in the same world.

18yoyogod
Juin 11, 2020, 2:21 pm

>5 scott_beeler: That looks much better. Thanks.

19AnnieMod
Juin 11, 2020, 2:52 pm

>16 amanda4242:

Combiners may also be a good group to mention this in - most people that are active in helping the site are monitoring that one. Yes - it is not combining but the series and combining often go hand in hand :)

20amanda4242
Modifié : Juin 11, 2020, 3:27 pm

>19 AnnieMod: Good idea! I'll write something up and post it in a couple of groups.

ETA: I've posted in Combiners, The Green Dragon, Science Fiction Fans, Gamers, and Comics.

21gilroy
Juin 12, 2020, 7:58 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/558/Mistborn

RPG and novels mixed together feels wrong to me. But I'll let others tell me.

22andyl
Juin 12, 2020, 8:08 am

>21 gilroy:

Yep in that case I would have the RPG stuff as a separate series, and use the relationship facility between them. I think that quite a lot of series which were lumped together would be better if this was done.

23gilroy
Juin 12, 2020, 8:10 am

>22 andyl: I'll create the link (the RPG series exists already) then remove the books.

24apokoliptian
Juin 12, 2020, 7:46 pm

It looks nice. There is the need of a filling of the missing data, but it is okay.

25gilroy
Juin 12, 2020, 7:56 pm

>24 apokoliptian: to which do you refer? Hitting reply doesn't thread your response under the post or to the post in any way.

26dfmorgan
Modifié : Juin 13, 2020, 2:41 pm

Ce message a été supprimé par son auteur

27dfmorgan
Modifié : Juin 13, 2020, 2:41 pm

I've been jumping in and looking around my series and spotted this anomaly The Dragon Mage

It appears as if 2 disparate series have been combined during the conversion from old to new.

Not too sure what to do so I thought it would be good to post here rather than break it.

ETA I was looking at just the Katharine Kerr titles not expecting the other 3.

28amanda4242
Juin 13, 2020, 2:48 pm

>27 dfmorgan: It looks like two different identically named series were combined at some point. I'll get it sorted out.

29dfmorgan
Juin 13, 2020, 2:53 pm

>28 amanda4242: Thank you very much

30dfmorgan
Juin 13, 2020, 3:12 pm

>28 amanda4242:

Nice one, I see you've split the The Silver Wyrm series out as well. Thanks again.

31amanda4242
Modifié : Juin 13, 2020, 3:22 pm

>30 dfmorgan: The author's website lists them as distinct subseries, but some editions of The Silver Wyrm are marketed as books 4-7 of the Dragon Mage. Should I add them back to Dragon Mage and set the relationship as a reordering?

32dfmorgan
Modifié : Juin 13, 2020, 4:16 pm

>31 amanda4242: I've had a quick look at the covers of my copies and they are marked as books 4-7 so maybe they do need to be added back in and relationship set as you say. Thank you very much for this.

33amanda4242
Juin 13, 2020, 4:37 pm

34amanda4242
Juin 13, 2020, 4:44 pm

Can someone take a look at The Witcher for me? I think I've got it sorted out, but it gets complicated when you're combining a dozen series over seven languages!

35dfmorgan
Juin 13, 2020, 4:55 pm

>33 amanda4242: That looks good. Once again Thank You

36reading_fox
Juin 14, 2020, 9:46 am

>34 amanda4242: looks good - and I didn't know about season of storms which is a good case for publication order!

37spiphany
Juin 14, 2020, 1:13 pm

>2 gilroy:
>7 andyl:
I worked on cleaning up/combining the rest of the duplicate/overlapping series.

I suspect there may still be some work to be done regarding the "collections and selections" (which should maybe be called "short stories" instead, given that several of the core works are collections), but I haven't touched it. E.g., just to make things difficult, "Earth Book of Stormgate" was apparently also issued in a three-volume edition. I created the relevant work-to-work relationships but haven't added parts 1-3 to the series list.

For some reason, so far as I can tell, the first German publication didn't include all the volumes and hence uses a different numbering; I've left this and connected it as a "reordered series".

38jjwilson61
Modifié : Juin 14, 2020, 2:13 pm

I was trying to find the next book to read in the Murderbot Diaries series and the one after Exit Strategy in core is a short story. Do I really need to read that before Network Effect? I would think that part of the expectation of having a core of a series is that those works should be read in order.

39amanda4242
Juin 14, 2020, 2:25 pm

>38 jjwilson61: I haven't read the short stories and had no problem going directly from Exit Strategy to Network Effect, so I think the stories can go in a separate group.

40MarthaJeanne
Modifié : Juin 16, 2020, 5:37 am

https://www.librarything.com/work/9782819
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/251157/GEOkompakt-mit-DVD-2010%25252F22

Actually it would be good if there were a GEOkompakt series; several of the magazine issues have been entered. This is only one issue.

The magazines can be bought with or without the related DVD.

41gilroy
Juin 16, 2020, 8:37 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/241481/Plato-Cicero-Epictetus-Homer-Tacitus...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't a series, right?

42MarthaJeanne
Juin 16, 2020, 8:56 am

>41 gilroy: As far as I can see, it might count as a publishers series if he had entered the individual volumes, and not the set. Note the review.

44gilroy
Juin 16, 2020, 1:39 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/13120/Liza-Picard-London-Histories
I feel like, even though these were all based on a similar subject (the history of London) that they are not a true series. Can anyone correct me?

46MarthaJeanne
Juin 16, 2020, 1:47 pm

>44 gilroy: I would consider a group of books by a single author that deal with life in the same city in different eras to be a series.

47Conkie
Juin 16, 2020, 2:31 pm

>44 gilroy: The author considered it a Trilogy at one time... excerpt from an article written about author

"The result was the typescript of Restoration London, followed by "a fat pile of rejection slips", until an agent steered it to Weidenfeld. Elizabethan London, which she is compiling at home in Oxford, will complete the trilogy."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/aug/04/historybooks.johncunningham

If you view the series by Publication date, the author's Elizabeth's London is the 3rd book, as she discussed. Obviously, she added a 4th book later.

>46 MarthaJeanne: I agree!

48amanda4242
Juin 16, 2020, 2:38 pm

>43 MarthaJeanne: I'm working on it, but not all of my edits saved. I'll finish it after I've had a break.

49al.vick
Juin 16, 2020, 2:46 pm

I have tried to clean up https://www.librarything.com/nseries/7031/Splat-the-Cat. It was the best I could do. Not sure what to do about the French editions, so I labeled them as such. There is one that seems to be Splat the Cat Sings Flat, but I don't know that the others correspond to English versions or not. There also seem to be several French titles listed on Rob Scotton's page that were not part of the series, I suppose those should all be added.

51gilroy
Juin 16, 2020, 3:04 pm

>46 MarthaJeanne: >47 Conkie: Okay, I left it alone.

52al.vick
Juin 16, 2020, 3:41 pm

>50 MarthaJeanne: Should I combine the French Editions with the English editions then? (for Splat the Cat)

53al.vick
Juin 16, 2020, 3:44 pm

In regards to the https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2617/Mr-Men (Mr. Men series) and the Little Miss series, and any related series about the Roger Hargreave Mr. Men/Little Miss books.... Should these be combined into one big series called Mr. Men/Little Miss? or some such name? I am looking at this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Men

Or should the sub-series be separate series? Or should the Little Miss series continue to be separate? Or should I just stay out of the whole mess?

54Conkie
Juin 16, 2020, 3:49 pm

>50 MarthaJeanne:

World Cat gives no English title for Splat range sa chambre !

I translated the title, then Googled it. Found on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Splat-cleans-up-his-room/dp/2092575066

55MarthaJeanne
Modifié : Juin 16, 2020, 4:11 pm

>52 al.vick: I would combine them. But I can't deal with the new series.

>54 Conkie: That does not seem to be on LT yet. At least I tried searching splat with room, cleans, or tidies, and none of them worked. And that edition seems to be a French one.

56amanda4242
Juin 16, 2020, 6:56 pm

My edits aren't sticking on Valdemar : Chronological Order. I've reported the bug in the main topic thread.

57Conkie
Modifié : Juin 16, 2020, 8:11 pm

>55 MarthaJeanne: That does not seem to be on LT yet. At least I tried searching splat with room, cleans, or tidies, and none of them worked. And that edition seems to be a French one.

I checked out "Splat the Cat: The Big Helper" (USA) on Hoopla. Inside that edition is a couple of pictures that the French edition's cover is from. At the very least, the French version (published 2017) is an "adaptation of" the USA version (published 2015).

(Edit for including Hoopla)

58Avron
Juin 17, 2020, 6:52 am

53 al.vick

There is a Mr Men and Little Miss series, (IMO) that should be the overall series with others (Mr. Men and Little Miss etc.) as subseries. I haven't got around to adding/sorting/shifting any of them (aside from one Little Miss book a couple of days ago), but it's one of the things I've thought about.

59gilroy
Juin 18, 2020, 10:41 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/42488/Bad-Boy-Billionaires

Okay, this one is a mess of two different series smooshed together. Not pretty.

60Conkie
Juin 18, 2020, 10:55 am

>59 gilroy: I'll work on it

61al.vick
Juin 18, 2020, 1:44 pm

>58 Avron: Avron

Yeah, I thought about waiting until maybe you could combine two series into a new one without deleting the old ones. Tim seemed to hint that might be coming.

62gilroy
Juin 18, 2020, 1:50 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/266141/Marry-Me-Cowboy-%5BReissues%5D
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/35017/Marry-Me-Cowboy-%5Breissues%5D

Okay, so two different users created the exact same series. One publisher series, one normal.
Which should stay and which should go away?
I'll admit to leaning toward Publisher Series, since it seems like more work went into it.

63Conkie
Juin 18, 2020, 2:04 pm

>59 gilroy: I split the two series... but was wondering how they got put together in the first place? Prior to the new series rollout, these two would not have been in the same series. I know this because I read most of one of the series, and I always make sure that the series name is distinguishable. Prior to rollout, it would be by adding the author's name in single brackets. Were the single brackets (because they are used in other fields for title touchstones), nullified when the new series were opened and populated?

By-the-by, I'm finding it difficult when looking for existing series/publisher series, to easily find whether it's publisher series vs. regular series; whether it exists or has been deleted. I have example screenshots, but don't remember how to add to this talk module.

64Conkie
Juin 18, 2020, 2:17 pm

>62 gilroy:

Okay, so two different users created the exact same series. One publisher series, one normal.
Which should stay and which should go away?
I'll admit to leaning toward Publisher Series, since it seems like more work went into it.


Being the LT user whom created the Publisher series containing more detail, I am partial to keeping that one, obviously.

However, this brings up a bigger issue that needs to be re-disclosed here.

The reason there exists duplicate series/publisher series lists is because the Publisher Series on CK page involved a lot more mouse clicks, etc. to get to.
It was a pain when dealing with large series, to repetitively scroll down, just to get to that line.
I'm sure at some time during my 14+ year tenure, I got frustrated and developed a publisher's series as a regular series.

65gilroy
Juin 18, 2020, 2:20 pm

>63 Conkie: I don't think the single brackets got nullified. But what may have happened is an admin not paying attention just stripped them and smashed them together, without looking.

Most of the searches I do, everything comes up a a series. I don't find it designated as Publisher or not until I get into the series page. I might have to point that out to Tim and Co.

66Avron
Juin 19, 2020, 2:53 am

https://www.librarything.com/work/38097 is listed as having two non-series sequels, both of which are the only other books in the HBHG series.
One of those classifications is obviously wrong but I've no idea which.

68dfmorgan
Juin 21, 2020, 4:24 pm

Does Slan. Il meglio della Fantascienza need to converted to a Publisher Series with Italian as its language? I don't speak Italian so used my favourite search/translate engine for the details which, to me, suggests that it needs the conversion.

69AnnieMod
Juin 21, 2020, 5:18 pm

>68 dfmorgan:

Done. You can do this kind of changes via The Basic Series Information https://www.librarything.com/nseries/edit/25332 yourself.

70dfmorgan
Juin 21, 2020, 5:25 pm

>69 AnnieMod:

Thank you

71al.vick
Juin 22, 2020, 12:59 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/444/Black-Dagger-Brotherhood

A lot of foreign language titles that could probably be combined.

72AnnieMod
Modifié : Juin 22, 2020, 1:01 pm

>71 al.vick:

Probably not - most of these are like this one: https://www.librarything.com/work/8961409/editions (see the disambig notice) - aka - split novels.

73spiphany
Modifié : Juin 22, 2020, 3:17 pm

>71 al.vick:
I think probably it needs a separate series for the German titles. It seems that for the German publication each of the English volumes was split in two, so there's likely not much combination that can be done.

I'd be happy to work on it, but maybe not this evening, so I won't be offended if someone else gets to it first.

Edit: I suppose it's not possible to undo a series combination. It seems there were originally two separate series (one with a label "German") that got put into one.

Edit 2: Nevermind, figured it out. The steps to uncombine are really not obvious...

Edit 3: Done, basically. The work-work relations for the Geerman editions should probably be fixed, though. They are all listed as "abridged versions" of the English edition rather than "contained within".

74shadrach_anki
Juin 22, 2020, 1:21 pm

>67 MarthaJeanne:

They can definitely be combined. I'm just not sure which series title is more "correct" in this case. In looking elsewhere online I have seen it referenced in a variety of ways, including putting the two together as "April Grove, a Street at War". Thoughts?

75MarthaJeanne
Juin 22, 2020, 3:15 pm

>74 shadrach_anki: Either would be fine, or the combined name.

76gilroy
Juin 25, 2020, 6:04 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/100569/Miranda

I want to say this is two series merged into one, but I'm not 100% sure.

77MarthaJeanne
Modifié : Juin 25, 2020, 8:22 am

Who is ever 100% sure? I would give it 99.9% though.

The three by Lance Parkin are all ghosts.

78amanda4242
Modifié : Juin 25, 2020, 11:43 am

>76 gilroy: They are two different series. I've separated them.

79Nicole_VanK
Juin 26, 2020, 1:22 am

>76 gilroy: That happens when more than one author creates a series that goes by the same name. We need to disambiguate them, for example by adding the name of the author in question.

80birder4106
Modifié : Juin 26, 2020, 2:56 am

I love the books from Kent Haruf.
So far I have not read all of his books.

But as I know all the books take place in a (fictional) town called Holt.

Two novels Plainsong and Eventide seem to belong to the series Plainsong (https://www.librarything.com/nseries/4503/Plainsong). Benediction seems to be a sequel of it.

I now have created a series named "Holt cycle" (https://www.librarything.com/nseries/310099/Holt-cycle) and added a group called "Plainsong".
Plainsong (https://www.librarything.com/nseries/4503/Plainsong) I declared as "Is a subseries of Holt cycle" (https://www.librarything.com/nseries/310099/Holt-cycle).

Is this correct?

81gilroy
Juin 26, 2020, 6:13 am

>79 Nicole_VanK: Yeah, know all that. But I wasn't sure if these were comics with different people ni as main author (not everyone put the writer as the primary author) or not. And it was a foreign language I don't speak. So I asked for help.

82Nicole_VanK
Juin 26, 2020, 7:24 am

>81 gilroy: Gotcha. Yeah, that can be tricky

83lauralkeet
Modifié : Juin 26, 2020, 4:51 pm

>80 birder4106: I always thought of Plainsong as a trilogy: Plainsong, Eventide, and Benediction. It appears this is how the publisher classifies them as well:
https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/kent-haruf/a5a738d5-f30c-44a2-131a-08d5dd18...

Since Haruf wrote other books set in Holt, I think what you've done makes sense: Plainsong trilogy as a subseries of Holt cycle.

I haven't kept up with all the discussion of best practices for naming, numbering and grouping, so I have a couple of thoughts/questions:
1. Since Benediction is third in the Plainsong trilogy, I would prefer it be labeled as "3", not "3 | Sequel".
2. Should Plainsong be considered "Core" in Holt cycle, not a separate group?

84gilroy
Juin 26, 2020, 9:52 am

>80 birder4106: >83 lauralkeet: It is only supposed to have a label IF it is a short story or novella. Or something written after the main body (IE Prequel.) If it is core, it should JUST be the number.

85al.vick
Juin 26, 2020, 11:01 am

Shouldn't the plainsong trilogy books be included in the Holt series then? I don't see them there.

86lauralkeet
Modifié : Juin 26, 2020, 4:19 pm

>84 gilroy: thanks. It looks like the Plainsong labeling has been changed to numbers only, so we're good there.

>85 al.vick: This gets to my second question in >83 lauralkeet:. The Plainsong trilogy currently shows as a group within the Holt cycle, appearing below the "Core" works on the series page. It seems more logical to me for the Plainsong works to be part of Holt's core. Thoughts?

87birder4106
Juin 26, 2020, 11:45 am

Thank you all for your help.

>83 lauralkeet:
1. I 've done it.
2. As you can view series with and without groups, I would prefer to have the groups.

>84 gilroy:
I am not happy with that. But it is ok for me. => changed

>85 al.vick:
They still are:
- View Grouped in Group "Plainsong"
- View Ungrouped (books: 3, 4, 5)

>86 lauralkeet:
See above answer to >85 al.vick:
I think it is a group in the Holt cycle and I would prefer to have the group staying in.

88jjwilson61
Modifié : Juin 26, 2020, 12:15 pm

>87 birder4106: I think it might make more sense to have the trilogy be the core and the other books be in a group of related books.

89birder4106
Juin 26, 2020, 2:23 pm

>88 jjwilson61:

There is a series for Plainsong itself: http://www.librarything.com/nseries/4503/Plainsong => Related Series, Is a subseries of Holt cycle

If groups are not to be used for this, can you please explain the purpose of groups?

90shadrach_anki
Juin 26, 2020, 2:41 pm

>89 birder4106:

In my opinion, the Holt Cycle series should not use groups at all. As you say, the Plainsong books already have their own series, and that series is listed as a sub-series of the Holt Cycle already. Separating them out into their own group on the overarching series page just makes things more confusing, and duplicates effort. It also removes the covers of the Plainsong trilogy from the "shelf" on the Holt Cycle page.

91al.vick
Juin 26, 2020, 3:37 pm

Okay, I was confused there is: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/67065/Holt. (which is the touchstone above and is apparently unrelated) and the Holt cycle: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/310099/Holt-cycle

92lauralkeet
Modifié : Juin 26, 2020, 4:55 pm

>90 shadrach_anki:
the Holt Cycle series should not use groups at all.
As noted in >89 birder4106:, the Holt cycle can be viewed "ungrouped" and the Plainsong books then appear in order. However, I don't like that the Plainsong covers are not displayed on the Holt cycle "shelf".

Personally, I would be okay with removing the Plainsong group within the Holt cycle, but birder4106 feels the group should remain. It would be helpful (for me, anyway) to have clarification on when groups should be used. Can you link to other series where groups are effective?

>91 al.vick: I'm sorry. I caused the touchstone confusion by using the incorrect series touchstone in >83 lauralkeet: and >86 lauralkeet:. I removed the references from my posts. However, I can't get a triple-bracket touchstone for Holt cycle. Waaahh!

93jjwilson61
Juin 26, 2020, 11:25 pm

As I understand it, groups should be used for things that aren't core. like omnibus works or Quidditch Through the Ages for the Harry Potter series.

94shadrach_anki
Juin 27, 2020, 12:48 am

>92 lauralkeet:

As >93 jjwilson61: says, groups should be used for things that aren't part of the core series. Things like omnibuses and boxed sets go into the "Collections and Selections" group. There are a number of series that contain both novels and short stories or novellas; generally speaking the novels would be part of the core, while the short stories/novellas would be separated out into their own group. I've also run across some series that include things like movie or television adaptations on the series page; such content is also not considered part of the core of the series.

For some examples....

Harry Potter: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/1/Harry-Potter - The core of the series consists of the seven original novels plus the script for the stage play. The movies are their own, related series, which is linked to the book series via a series relationship. Omnibuses and boxed sets are in Collections and Selections, and two other groups were created for the school books and short stories.

Kate Daniels: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/420/Kate-Daniels - This is a series that contains several sub-series (each with their own series pages). In this particular case, none of the sub-series works are included in the series core, since the sub-series almost entirely consist of novellas and short stories.

World of the Marrok: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/170/World-of-the-Marrok - This series brings together three separate-but-connected series. The novels from the Mercy Thompson and Alpha and Omega series make up the core, and the comics, short stories/novellas, and omnibuses/boxed sets are separated into distinct groups.

----

Going back to the Holt cycle... having not read the books in question myself, I can only go by what has been stated in this thread. We are looking at six books that all share a distinct setting, and that setting is the reason for the series. Books 3-5 of the series happen to be their own trilogy, and that trilogy has its own series page, which is listed as a sub-series of the Holt Cycle. Pulling them out into their own group on the overarching series page is not necessary, and creates the impression that those works are not part of the core, when in fact they are.

95birder4106
Juin 27, 2020, 6:33 am

When I read the first book of Kent Haruf Plainsong, I did not know that it was the first part of a trilogy, nor that all (?) Other works took place in the fictional city of Holt.
I just loved the book. That's why I read Our Souls at Night soon after.

Now, a few years later, after the great renewal of series, I discovered that the "Holt universe" consisted of more parts than I had thought. I also found out that there is a series called Plainsong and that it consists of another book which I did not know yet (Benediction) and which I also got right away.
To get an overview of Ken Haruf's books, I created the series "Holt Cycle". In order to illustrate the embedding of the "Plainsong" series, I have defined the Plainsong books as a group. It was believed that changing the view between grouped and non-grouped can select the view that best suits your personal preferences.

Well, I see that my considerations do not coincide with those of other users, I will bow.

So please be free to define the series according to your opinion (general view).

96lauralkeet
Juin 27, 2020, 8:26 am

>94 shadrach_anki: I really appreciate you taking the time to post those examples. I know there has been a lot of discussion about series best practices, and I haven't followed it closely enough to know how the "core vs groups" aspect has developed. This is very helpful. I agree with your last paragraph about applying these principles to the Holt cycle.

>95 birder4106: I came to the Kent Haruf books from the opposite direction. I read Plainsong, learned it was part of a trilogy, and read those. I also read Our Souls at Night when it was released. Somehow, I never learned of the other books that are part of the Holt cycle! So, I am grateful to you for bringing those to my attention.

-----
I just edited the Holt cycle series to make the Plainsong novels "core."

98Petroglyph
Juin 29, 2020, 10:12 am

>97 gilroy:
Since the books in question are called Volume 1 and Volume 2 I'd give them a pass.

100amanda4242
Juil 2, 2020, 11:32 am

>99 MarthaJeanne: Nope. Combine 'em.

101gilroy
Juil 2, 2020, 1:42 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2107/Valdemar-Vows-and-Honor
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/15923/Valdemar-Vows-And-Honor
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/157902/Vows-and-Honor-%5BLackey%5D

These three all seem to point to the same sub series of the Valdemar universe. I'm not versed enough to know if these should be smooshed into one or renamed to better reflect what they are.

102amanda4242
Modifié : Juil 2, 2020, 1:57 pm

>101 gilroy: https://www.librarything.com/nseries/15923/Valdemar-Vows-And-Honor is short stories in the Vows and Honor subseries so it should be combined with https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2107/Valdemar-Vows-and-Honor.

I deleted https://www.librarything.com/nseries/157902/Vows-and-Honor-%5BLackey%5D since it was just an omnibus that needed to be combined with the main work.

103MarthaJeanne
Juil 2, 2020, 2:36 pm

The 2107 series is the core.

104jasbro
Modifié : Juil 7, 2020, 12:12 pm

I'm so far behind on Series, I'll likely never catch up. How can we combine the larger, more authoritative Publisher Series http://www.librarything.com/nseries/256977/The-Legal-Classics-Library-Gryhpon-Ed... (the displayed name of which I've corrected from the mispelling "Gryhpon") with the smaller, more incomplete Publisher Series http://www.librarything.com/nseries/260156/The-Legal-Classics-Library-Gryphon-Ed... Also, if I'm adding works to the Publisher Series that are not yet included, how do I make sure they get to the larger, more authoritative Publisher Series? Thanks to y'all ...

ETA: Maybe nevermind ... looks like it's gonna be "slowly, one at a time."

105spiphany
Modifié : Juil 7, 2020, 12:22 pm

>104 jasbro: You should be able to use the option "relationships/combine" in the "edit series" module to merge the duplicate series.

Note: this only works if a) there is at least one book listed in both series and b) both series are of the same type.

107amanda4242
Juil 9, 2020, 2:55 pm

I can't find a full list of publications for it, but here's the Wikipedia entry.

I'd merge them into one publishers series and call it Fawcett Gold Medal Books.

109MarthaJeanne
Juil 9, 2020, 3:53 pm

>108 gilroy: Each of those 'series' contains one book.

110gilroy
Juil 10, 2020, 2:29 pm

>109 MarthaJeanne: thank you for stating the obvious.

111gilroy
Juil 10, 2020, 2:30 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/30052/Mating-Season-Collection

This feels more like someone doesn't understand series here, or else should be a publisher's series.

112amanda4242
Modifié : Juil 10, 2020, 2:46 pm

>111 gilroy: Not sure if it's a shared universe thing or a publishers series. ISFDB has a page for it.

113Conkie
Modifié : Juil 10, 2020, 3:52 pm

>111 gilroy: This is not meant to be critical, just a question of sorts. If someone took the time to develop that page (Mating Season Collection) of related books, does it really matter if it turns out not to be a series? I mean, this is supposed to be a user-driven library of sorts. How many people will be bent out of shape if it exists on LT? Only 52 LTer's would even see it, if we weren't in the process of clean up.

To me, clean up is (for example): multiple series that exist because of lack of capitalization, misspellings, etc., which should be just one. Not a judgement on whether a developed list of books that have some common thread, should exist on LT, or not.

edited for clarification

114gilroy
Juil 10, 2020, 3:57 pm

>112 amanda4242: If it's shared universe, I'll leave it alone.

>113 Conkie: I didn't know if they were truly related by anything other than all having the same series name. So I was asking for that detail. Just because I ask for details does NOT mean I am going to delete things.

Clean up to me includes making sure a series actually does exist.

115Conkie
Juil 10, 2020, 4:04 pm

>114 gilroy: I gotcha. Actually that series is a great example as to why we need "Description" near the top of the page... to be able to explain why there is no "core" series named, and to encourage users to add outside links that help the rest of us understand.

116amanda4242
Juil 10, 2020, 5:05 pm

>113 Conkie: In many cases it probably doesn't matter, but I vaguely remember a thread where an author said they had trouble getting some of their books republished because they were erroneously listed as a series.

117lorax
Juil 13, 2020, 3:03 pm

amanda4242: I remember that. That was a big eyeroll of a thread.

118MarthaJeanne
Juil 17, 2020, 4:56 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/105381/Colección-Prisma# needs to be a publishers series if at all.

119marc.slingerland
Juil 18, 2020, 3:41 pm

Yes, when searching for existing series, there is no indicator of which ones listed are deleted series.

120Conkie
Modifié : Juil 18, 2020, 5:11 pm

>118 MarthaJeanne: I saw that you changed this to a publishers series. It looks to be such, based on a Google search. I added a link to this series page.

I figure best to provide info to someone happening upon this page, so that even if they are unfamiliar with the language and series, they can see that it should not be deleted. Hope someone will add more books to this Publishers series.

Edited for clarification

122Conkie
Juil 19, 2020, 1:16 am

>121 amanda4242: I believe it would be considered a Publisher series. "Applause" is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. It doesn't appear to be active, based on the publishing dates seen on the books still listed on their website. WorldCat shows a similarly titled series.

124Luisali
Juil 24, 2020, 5:27 am

Combined.

125spiphany
Modifié : Juil 26, 2020, 8:50 am

The Loeb Classical Library (https://www.librarything.com/nseries/256393/Loeb-Classical-Library) is rather a mess. I started working on it but it's very time-consuming and many of the individual volumes also need combining/separating done.

There are several issues:

- duplication due to works that need to be combined, or works for which the Greek/Latin edition has been separated out (dead languages rule), but the publisher series has not been removed from the work that collects translated editions.

- some volumes in the series have been reissued with the same volume number but slightly different content (i.e., a somewhat different selection of an author's works). These have been marked, where known, with the letter "N" after the number, following the conventions used on other websites. There's a list here which is helpful for sorting out the "old" vs. "new" editions: http://www.edonnelly.com/loebs.html

- automatic sorting by order label does not put the volumes in the correct order (10 is between 1 and 2; 15N is after 150). I have therefore set it to "custom order", which unfortunately means manually dragging titles to the correct position across 500+ volumes. If there's a better solution please feel free to implement it.

- I haven't done anything with the "collections and selections" group. These are presumably not omnibus volumes but instances where someone has entered multiple volumes as a set.

- I've created subseries relationships in cases where a separate series had been entered for the multi-volume works of an author. I have not standardized the format of these series names and I have not created additional subseries for other authors whose works have also been split into multiple volumes in the Loeb editions.

126SandraArdnas
Juil 28, 2020, 8:26 pm

If anyone is willing, Bollingen Series needs some work.

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/257602/Bollingen-Series

For one, I can't decide the best default order. I mean they are numbered, but it being over 250 works all in all, automatic by order label seems the logical choice. Drag and dropping in a huge list is a nightmare.

However, I can't seem to work out the way to label them so they order properly due to all those 20.1, 20.12 and the like. If anyone has better ideas how to order them efficiently, please share.

Also, is it not possible to establish a relationship between a series and publisher series? The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts (a series) is a subseries of Bollingen, but it seems impossible to set the relationship. They do not show as overlapping and searching to add non-overlapping returns no results.

127Felagund
Modifié : Juil 29, 2020, 11:09 am

> 126
Interesting question about relationships - I don't see any reason why a series and a publisher series should be connected like this. Is it useful to know that a given series (let's say The Lord of the Rings , as a totally random example), has been published as part of a publisher series, and then another one, and yet another one...? Just being curious, no (serious) judgement intended.

128gilroy
Juil 29, 2020, 2:13 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/52820/Die-W%C3%B6lfe-von-Stone-Ridge
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/28299/Wolves-of-Stone-Ridge

Okay, from what I can tell, these two are the same series. But for some unknown, someone pulled all the German titles out, including off their works, to make its own series. Should all this be merged again?

(This suggests someone who doesn't understand the system to me.)

129SandraArdnas
Juil 29, 2020, 2:35 pm

>127 Felagund: Probably not in case where a series would overlap with quite a few publisher series, but this is quite different. The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts is solely a part of Bollingen series, which I suspect is why it was qualified as a series. Bollingen in entirety OTOH is clearly a publisher series as it also includes new editions of classics, but the Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts is a Bollingen Foundation project. All of the books in the series are a part of the Bollingen series and no other.

130amanda4242
Juil 29, 2020, 3:03 pm

>128 gilroy: They look like they should be combined to me. Maybe drop the member who created the German series a note asking if there are differences between the English and German editions of the books which would warrant separating titles and creating a second series.

131Conkie
Modifié : Juil 29, 2020, 10:41 pm

>126 SandraArdnas: However, I can't seem to work out the way to label them so they order properly due to all those 20.1, 20.12 and the like. If anyone has better ideas how to order them efficiently, please share.

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/257602/Bollingen-Series

I changed to sort by "order label".
Two reasons they weren't sorting:
1) Some numbers still used a colon vs. a period. LT's program language doesn't recognized a colon to act like a period during sort.
2) LT program for sorting numbers also assumes that 35.3 is the same as 35.30... whereas the series (based on Wikipedia web page where I believe this info came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollingen_Foundation#Numbers_1_to_34) assumes 35.3 is actually 35.03 (the third). I have changed a few of these, and refreshed to show this...

I hope this is helpful...

ETA: correction of title; ETA2: emphasis added

132SandraArdnas
Juil 29, 2020, 10:56 pm

>131 Conkie: Thanks. The strangest thing is I originally did exactly that, but 3-9 ended up below 20, so I tried the wiki format, but that didn't work either.

Hopefully it will continue to sort correctly because I intend to list at least all the titles listed in the wiki. No idea where to find all post-1985 or so, some of which are listed already, but I'd say with incorrect order labels. Princeton University Press has a Bollingen series page, but it is unhelpful for this

133Conkie
Modifié : Juil 30, 2020, 12:50 am

>132 SandraArdnas: You're welcome... now that I think about it, I had a couple that wouldn't sort correctly, so I wiped out the entire contents, then re-typed in. Then it sorted okay... such is life. :)

Not sure if this list is any more complete that Wikipedia's...

https://www.wikiwand.com/es/Bollingen_Foundation

ETA:link

134SandraArdnas
Juil 30, 2020, 1:03 am

>133 Conkie: Nah, wikiwand is just a fancy extension to make wikipedia look like 21st century page :) I use it. The problem is with the publisher. There doesn't seem to be info on ordering after a certain point and even just finding what books belong is a chore. The series page opens with a dozen titles and you have to click 'load more' for each new dozen.

135Felagund
Juil 30, 2020, 6:12 am

> 129 SandraArdnas

Thanks for the response! Indeed the A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts looks like a perfectly fine series, and Bollingen will probably remain the exclusive publisher. I'm OK with that. What I did not understand was the interest of showing the inclusion of AWMLFA in the Bollingen publisher series... now I can see one, which would be to give some visibility to AWMLFA on the Bollingen page. It did not occur to me at first because in general I find that that right-hand side of the series page (where relationships are displayed) is already too crowded with similar-but-not-the-same variant series (already for "real" series, but even worse for publisher series) :-D

Instead of setting a relationship that might not be possible technically, you could perhaps define a new group just for these works, instead of seeing then in "Core" or "Collections and Selections" (the latter feeling rather weird to me in a publisher series, by the way)? That's a bit of manual work, of course, and I don't think it would be a good idea to do this more generally, but perhaps it could be helpful in such a very specific case.

136lorax
Juil 30, 2020, 10:34 am

So, this is a rant, not an RSI or a call for help, because I know that it's falling on deaf ears - there's one person whose opinion here matters and his mind is made up.

Another case to add to the list of "insisting on internal chronological order under all circumstances is utterly incoherent" examples:

I am currently reading The Relentless Moon, third in the Lady Astronaut series. I say third because that's the order the author wrote them in, the order in which they were published, and at least AN order in which the author and publisher believe they can best be read. But chronologically, it's set during the second book. Fortunately, the series was defined under the Old System, where it was designated the third volume, and that came over. Otherwise I suppose to satisfy Tim we'd need to do a page-by-page comparison, so people can sit with copies of both books and read each page in 'proper' chronological order. (It features different characters, but events from each book are referenced in the other, so this could be done.)

I have yet to hear a good explanation from Tim why "Thou Shalt Read Books in Chronological Order" is so important but "Thou Shalt Read Pages Of A Book In Chronological Order" is, according to him, self-evidently absurd, when it's the same damn thing. Authors tell a story in the order they want it in, whether that story takes one book or ten to tell.

137gilroy
Juil 30, 2020, 10:52 am

I realize the Narnia Books are Tim's go to example. But I'm sorry. Those read best as they were published, not in the ICO that he and more modern publishers insist on.

138Conkie
Juil 30, 2020, 11:18 am

>135 Felagund: Instead of setting a relationship that might not be possible technically, you could perhaps define a new group just for these works, instead of seeing then in "Core" or "Collections and Selections"

I think you have a great idea here... however, just a reminder that only books under the "core" group, have covers displayed... I'm hoping this is eventually corrected!

139amanda4242
Modifié : Juil 30, 2020, 11:22 am

>136 lorax: I'm sure we can all come up with examples where it's absurd to force chronological order--my favorite example is the Mary Russell series, where book five takes place in the middle of book one. I've been reading Asterix comics recently and have come across another, related problem: Asterix seems to have been numbered differently for damn near every translation, which means there's a bunch of series which can't be combined.

>137 gilroy: I'm with you on that one.

ETA: This discussion seems like something that could easily take over this thread, so how about we keep it to the main topic thread or maybe best practices.

140aspirit
Modifié : Juil 30, 2020, 12:08 pm

This message is a reminder that the series default can be set to publication order, but doing that removes the story or custom tab entirely. Please use it only when only the publication order matters.

... I think that consideration will keep calls for help in replacing series data down.

141Felagund
Juil 30, 2020, 1:20 pm

> 139 I've been reading Asterix comics recently and have come across another, related problem: Asterix seems to have been numbered differently for damn near every translation, which means there's a bunch of series which can't be combined.

This is indeed a frequent problem with French/Belgian comics. The Germans, Italians, Americans... often translate only part of the series, and publish them out of order. The proper order being, of course, the original **publication** order (lorax, I feel your pain).

142aspirit
Modifié : Juil 31, 2020, 2:40 pm

Oh. I am not up for tackling the TMNT comic series mess on my own.

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/22881/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles

ETA: Notes:

The publication dates are wrong for The Ultimate Collection series and incomplete for The IDW Collection series.

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/58181/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-The-Ulti...

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/79371/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-The-IDW-...

143gilroy
Août 6, 2020, 8:47 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/14248/Tales-from-the-Shadowhunter-Academy

I feel like this should be just a work to work relationship not a series, but wanted others opinions.

144Conkie
Modifié : Août 6, 2020, 9:04 am

>143 gilroy: I think this should stay as a series, and here's why... each novella was released before the anthology/compilation. Thus, a reader could opt in/out of the series at any point. (see link and snippet from website, below). I think this is becoming a popular way for authors to get their names "out there". I have come upon other series in similar situations.

This series on LT should actually have the novellas listed as CORE, and the compilation as COLLECTIONS/SELECTIONS.

https://shadowhunters.fandom.com/wiki/Tales_from_the_Shadowhunter_Academy

Tales from the Shadowhunter Academy is a series of novellas by Cassandra Clare, Sarah Rees Brennan, Maureen Johnson, and Robin Wasserman. Much like The Bane Chronicles, it is a collection of 10 short stories that was released monthly in e-book format before its publication as a compilation.

UPDATE: I added a link on the Series webpage to the Fandom wiki page regarding the series.

ETA: update

146amanda4242
Août 7, 2020, 10:31 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/3164/Rolling-Stone-500

Surely this isn't a series. A list or maybe awards and honors, but not a series.

147Conkie
Août 7, 2020, 10:43 pm

>145 amanda4242: Based on the Series Description (which I updated based on the website), it appears to be one to me. They get exclusive first printing rights. Based on what the stories are to be about or contain, this may be the only publisher that could afford to publish them (imo). But, honestly, I don't think most LT users would care, as long as it's available here.

>146 amanda4242:. Technically, probably a list, because there may not be a republishing of each of those 500, that would contain notice of this 500 designation... maybe an after-the-fact sticker, like Caldecott medals, etc. But, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to allow lists like this one, since it was generated by a company/not-for-profit, etc., rather than an average person's personal preference list.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-1...

148amanda4242
Août 7, 2020, 10:57 pm

>147 Conkie: I really don't think the Rolling Stone list qualifies as a LT series. https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/HelpThing:Series

We don't create a series for every award or honors list; that's what the awards and honors field in CK is for. As the Rolling Stone list already exists as a CK award, I'm going to delete the series.

149Conkie
Août 8, 2020, 10:17 pm

>148 amanda4242: Didn't know there was a CK award list for the Rolling Stone's top 500 Albums!
I assumed (which I don't know why I did), there was no other list.
I used the general search field to find that CK list, and didn't get results. Do you mind posting the link? :P

151Conkie
Août 9, 2020, 9:46 am

>150 amanda4242: Oh, my! My search was for ...StoneS! No wonder I wasn't getting results. THANK YOU!

152ChloeSwadling
Août 9, 2020, 9:56 am

Cet utilisateur a été supprimé en tant que polluposteur.

153gilroy
Août 14, 2020, 8:44 am

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/4981/Bad-Boys

Were all these books/anthologies put out by the same publisher? Or is this a theme that was gathered as a "series"?

I'm leaning toward marking it as a publisher series because of how many different authors are involved and the fact that they overlap so many other series.

154aspirit
Modifié : Août 14, 2020, 10:54 am

>153 gilroy: I went digging. To add to the confusion-- I think that series is actually a mix of Kensington Books "Bad Boy" novels.

https://www.kensingtonbooks.com/

Marking it publisher series looks best for accuracy.

155Conkie
Août 15, 2020, 1:09 pm

>153 gilroy:
>154 aspirit: I have been aware of these books for awhile. I wrote the original Series Description, but have revamped it. Good to see it kept as a series, as I believe those familiar with Kensington/Brava would treat these as such. Being classified as a Publisher series is as good as any. :)

156Maddz
Août 16, 2020, 3:13 am

Can somebody take a look at Murasaki Shikibu and sort out the various series of Tale of Genji? They seem to be distributed across various languages...

I think this one is the Japanese series - https://www.librarything.com/nseries/5267/%E6%BA%90%E6%B0%8F%E7%89%A9%E8%AA%9E which includes the complete Waley translation as book 3.

This is the English series - https://www.librarything.com/nseries/11693/Tale-of-Genji which is a mess. The various books of the Waley translations are (mostly) collections and selections. As far as I can see, Waley published his translation as 6 books (I have 2 and what I hope is the complete unabridged collection):

1. The Tale of Genji
2. The Sacred Tree
3. A Wreath of Cloud
4. Blue Trousers
5. The Lady of the Boat
6. The Bridge of Dreams

Scanning the list here https://www.librarything.com/author/shikibumurasaki, I can spot versions of parts 2-6, and probably versions of part 1. I can also see editions that need combining. Unfortunately, my language skills aren't good enough to to a proper job.

I suspect it's likely that Miyako Maki's manga version is included in the series as well.

This is a weird one, because technically The Tale of Genji is a single book, but has been split into various volumes over time so whether it's really a series is debatable.

157gilroy
Août 26, 2020, 12:09 pm

https://www.librarything.com/nseries/273316/Silhouette-Family-Secrets
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/23156/Family-Secrets

The publishers series in the first link seems to overlap with the regular series of the second link.
Um, I'm inclined to delete the first publisher's series, then convert the regular series to a publishers series, so we don't lose anything with the set up, but I don't know it well enough to know if I'd be right or not.

158amanda4242
Août 26, 2020, 12:29 pm

>157 gilroy: Looking at the Goodreads series page makes me think it's a shared universe rather than a publishers series.

https://www.goodreads.com/series/96060-family-secrets

I'd delete Silhouette Family Secrets and leave the other as a regular series.

159gilroy
Août 26, 2020, 1:01 pm

>158 amanda4242: Have you another source than Goodreads?

160amanda4242
Modifié : Août 26, 2020, 1:42 pm

https://www.harlequin.com/shop/miniseries/family-secrets-silhouette.html
https://www.fictiondb.com/series/series.php?seriesid=13187&ltyp=2

I haven't done an exhaustive search, but GR looks like it has better info than even the publisher's website, and the reviews there mention recurring characters and an overarching plot.

Since we're not sure, I'd suggest just deleting the sparsely populated publishers series and leaving the other series as it is.

161Conkie
Août 26, 2020, 4:13 pm

>159 gilroy:
>160 amanda4242:

From: https://www.powells.com/book/silhouette-family-secrets-02-9780373613694

"Family secrets continue to unravel this month with a new title from USA TODAY bestselling author Anne Marie Winston. FAMILY SECRETS: Five extraordinary siblings. One explosive past. Family Secrets is a contemporary new limited continuity exploring hidden identity, finding family and coming to terms with your roots. Centering around the danger, discovery and romance that follows five "superhuman" siblings searching for one other..."

(#160) Since we're not sure, I'd suggest just deleting the sparsely populated publishers series and leaving the other series as it is.

I agree.

162Maddz
Août 30, 2020, 1:04 am

Anyone know anything about a series called SiniSet 168? A single title, but there do seem to be a couple of publisher series with the word SiniSet:
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/265390/SiniSet (includes the single title in the above series)
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/262253/Siniset-Tarzan-kirjat (only a single volume)

and a deleted series:
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/127003&showdeleted=1

I'm inclined to mark SiniSet 168 as a Publisher series and merge it with the SiniSet series (perhaps marking The Yellow Claw as #168. What do others think?

163MarthaJeanne
Modifié : Août 30, 2020, 4:44 am

>162 Maddz: Almost certainly. That's a very common newbie mistake.

Siniset is Finnish for blue. Look at member covers for that book.

164Maddz
Modifié : Août 30, 2020, 5:13 am

>163 MarthaJeanne: OK, I'll merge the 2 series.

And done!

165gabriel
Août 31, 2020, 2:35 pm

The problem of anthologies. An anthology creates incorrect series relationships. Illustrated Treasury of Modern Literature for Children includes stories from a number of different series. I'd be inclined to just eliminate all the series it currently belongs to - I assume I can only do this from the series page, not the work page?

Or, should it be kept in the "collection" group, and all the relationships manually removed (if this is even possible)?

166amanda4242
Modifié : Août 31, 2020, 3:14 pm

>165 gabriel: That's one of several problems with adding anthologies. It's been discussed in the main topic and best practices threads. Most people were in favor of removing them if the short stories have been cataloged, but Tim disagreed.

There is an option in Relationships/Combine to remove a relationship, but I don't think the feature actually works yet.

167gabriel
Août 31, 2020, 5:53 pm

In this case, they are stories, not short stories. I didn't read the entire thread, but it sounded like Tim was particularly concerned about removing short stories that aren't easily available elsewhere. An anthology like this fits neither category - it's principal stories that are fairly well-known.

I'll just note that for now I'm dismissing the relationships, but this is a real pain. There are 14 unrelated series in the anthology, which if my math is correct, means 91 "relationships" that need to be got rid of on 13 different pages.

168amanda4242
Modifié : Août 31, 2020, 6:44 pm

>167 gabriel: Is the dismiss feature working? Last time I tried it the series were removed from the Relationships/Combine page, but they still showed up as an overlapping series on the main page.

ETA: I just looked at the work you're asking about, and I'd say delete it from all the series. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the Wolves Chronicles are both widely available series which aren't related to each other at all.

(again)ETA: Okay, found an image of the cover flap, and the Illustrated Treasury of Modern Literature for Children contains extracts, not entire books. That means the work relationships have to be changed too.

169gabriel
Août 31, 2020, 6:44 pm

Nope, you're right - it's not working as far as I can tell. I was thinking perhaps it takes a little while for the series pages to update from the underlying data, but I experimentally changed a relationship, and it updated immediately. Incidentally, on the edit page, it says that rather than dismissing/eliminating the relationship, I've made it "has no relationship with"... which is a defined type of relationship.

Which, incidentally, I thought I'd be able to reverse, but apparently not. Hanoverian Stories should be a subseries, not a retelling of Wolves Chronicles.

170gabriel
Modifié : Août 31, 2020, 6:57 pm

Ah, that makes more sense. I was thinking it must be a massive, massive volume.

ETA: I'm inclined to take out all the work-to-work relationships. There isn't an option for "contains excerpts of"; options would be to keep it as is, or say that the anthology is an abridgement of the individual work (doesn't even seem to be an actual abridgement, just an extract). If there isn't an accurate defined relationship between the works, I'd think we should just eliminate it. The anthology would still list the authors as contributors.

171amanda4242
Août 31, 2020, 6:52 pm

>169 gabriel: Worldcat shows it as having 400-odd pages, so definitely not long enough for 26 full books!

I've fixed the relationship between Wolves Chronicles and Hanoverian Stories; existing relationships can't be altered, so you have to remove them if you need to make a change.

172amanda4242
Août 31, 2020, 8:29 pm

>170 gabriel: I know abridgment isn't really an accurate description, but I thought this minor inaccuracy was better than having the person who originally added the work relationships come along and re-add all of them as being contained within. I'm fine with either keeping or deleting.

173gabriel
Sep 3, 2020, 12:52 pm

I won't make the perfect the enemy of the good... especially as the perfect in this case is not available. Thanks very much!

174gabriel
Modifié : Sep 3, 2020, 1:45 pm

Another question: where a publisher or publishers publish a single work in a number of volumes, should we use a series for it? There could be a multiplicity of "series" where something was published in two volumes by one publisher. Or where it's been published in a variety of divisions, such as The Diary of Samuel Pepys or Diary of a Country Parson, should we keep such series but simply designate them publisher series?

I don't think of these as series in the common sense - they are just multi-volume publications of a single work. We could easily end up with a dozen "series" of Pepys' diary, for example. What's the difference between a publisher splitting up a diary and say, a multi-volume "Complete Works" such as: Complete Works of William Congreve?

175Maddz
Modifié : Sep 3, 2020, 1:49 pm

>174 gabriel: Good point. See my post >156 Maddz: for a similar situation.

176amanda4242
Sep 3, 2020, 2:00 pm

>174 gabriel: Generally, a single work which has been split into multiple volumes isn't considered a series and should instead be connected with work relationships, like Imajica.

177gabriel
Modifié : Sep 4, 2020, 5:48 pm

>176 amanda4242: >175 Maddz: I've decided to be fairly lenient to such series, normally switching them to publisher series.

The work-to-work relationships aren't a great fit for these multi-volume sets. The Complete Works of William Congreve I linked to above is a four-volume edition issued by the Nonesuch Press. You could link the individual works in each volume, but how to describe the relation between the volumes? Prequel and sequel seem not the right description, and even if it were, it's unwieldy to describe volume 2 as the sequel to volume 1 and a prequel of volume 3 and volume 4. I'm leaning towards publisher series as the best way to deal with this, even though you're often dealing with a single work (i.e. the Diaries examples above).

On another note, the Oxford Histories series seems just to be an agglomeration of actual series, such as the Oxford History of England. Merely having the same style of title does not a series make. I was going to delete it, but thought perhaps I should see what the view is here.

178gabriel
Modifié : Sep 4, 2020, 5:47 pm

>141 Felagund: So, unaware of this discussion, I combined some of the overlapping Asterix series. Even if the publisher reorders a series (or there are volumes lacking in a given language), they remain the same works and the same series.

The last volume of Solzhenitsyn's Red Wheel, for instance, has not been translated into English. This does not mean that the English series is different than the Russian. The principle extends to things like Asterix, where there's either an internal chronology or an original publication order. The publication order in Italian or Spanish should not matter, imho.

179spiphany
Sep 5, 2020, 2:16 am

>178 gabriel:
No, the foreign language Asterix numberings are not the same thing as a series which has only partially been translated into another language.

In this case, the volumes have not only been published in a different order in another language, but they have also been assigned a new numbering by the publisher in that language. This means that the new numberings represent data about the series that may very well be relevant to some users.

You may not care about any orderings other than the internal chronology or original publication order to be the only relevant orderings -- but other users might. It's even possible that some users are only familiar with the series numbering in their language and find the original numbering to be irrelevant. I don't see how it harms anyone to include the additional information about publication order in other languages. That's why the option exists to label a series as a reordering of another one.

I will note that I think in such cases it is essential to document for other users why the additional series has been created. This was not the case with the various Asterix series.

At a minimum, such cases should include a note in the English description field and a creation of an appropriate series relationship link. I also find it helpful if the series name in some way indicates what makes this new series entry distinct from the other ones -- i.e., not just "Asterix" in the corresponding language, but also "Asterix (Klingon-language numbering)" or whatever as the English series name.

180gabriel
Sep 5, 2020, 12:27 pm

>179 spiphany:

I'll do as the consensus demands, but we don't preserve every bit of information. We don't have a place for the original publication date in every language, for instance.

There are two issues at play: series with untranslated volumes & series which have been numbered differently by different publishers. I hope we are all agreed that a series with untranslated volumes that is not altered in sequence shouldn't be differentiated from the main series, even if the foreign-language publisher numbers its volumes, skipping those that haven't been translated.

The interesting case is where the foreign-language publisher reorders the volumes it does publish. I don't think this is significant information. We almost always order true series either by their internal chronology or their order of publication. Typically, publishers number true series in one of these two ways. But what value is it if a publisher renumbers them in a different manner? It remains the same series, with the same internal chronology, with the same original publication order. Typically, a foreign-language publisher will reorder in the order it has published its translations - dates we don't even record. Frankly, this is unimportant information - it is neither information about the works themselves (internal chronology) nor their authorial history (original publication order).

All costs on this site are minimal in the grand scheme of things, but allowing for a slew of series for the same works gums up everybody's series data. Asterix has been published in over a hundred languages - it's not reasonable to have dozens of series reflecting the idiosyncratic publication decisions of foreign-language presses.

181jjwilson61
Sep 5, 2020, 1:37 pm

Actually you can enter multiple original publication dates and people have used that to record the OPD for particular languages.

182gabriel
Sep 5, 2020, 6:06 pm

>181 jjwilson61:
I did not know that people had done that. My broader point is simply that LT is not a repository of every single piece of information available about a given work - it does include an awful lot, but there's always a limit.

183MarthaJeanne
Sep 5, 2020, 6:09 pm

But if I have a book with Nr. 15 on it, I don't want it only in a series that calls it Nr. 18.

184gabriel
Sep 5, 2020, 7:29 pm

>183 MarthaJeanne:

This argument would apply equally to publishers who decided not to translate some of the works. I hope some foreign publishers decide not to publish Tintin in the Congo, and if they start numbering with Tintin in America or Cigars of the Pharaoh, the entire numbering of the series will be different under that publisher, but it reflects nothing but the partial availability of the series by that publisher.

I'm wary of having a multiplicity of publisher series that are simply a true series as published (usually) in translation, but if we think it's essential to have separate series that reflects whatever numbering happens to exist anywhere, then they should probably be publisher series.

On another note, I'll quote my comments above on the problem of multi-volume sets:

"The work-to-work relationships aren't a great fit for these multi-volume sets. The Complete Works of William Congreve I linked to above is a four-volume edition issued by the Nonesuch Press. You could link the individual works in each volume, but how to describe the relation between the volumes? Prequel and sequel seem not the right description, and even if it were, it's unwieldy to describe volume 2 as the sequel to volume 1 and a prequel of volume 3 and volume 4. I'm leaning towards publisher series as the best way to deal with this, even though you're often dealing with a single work (i.e. the Diaries examples above)."

Does anyone have a view on how best to handle these?

185Maddz
Sep 6, 2020, 1:32 am

I've got some of The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey https://www.librarything.com/nseries/146718/The-Collected-Writings-of-Thomas-De-.... At the moment it's treated as a regular series, but it probably ought to be switched to Publisher Series.

So yeah, I'm OK with changing these collected works series to Publisher Series. (Clark Ashton Smith and William Hope Hodgson also spring to mind as examples in my library.)

Another edge case: Four Seasons https://www.librarything.com/nseries/313566/Four-Seasons. It's not a series the way we would consider it now, but it's a thematic series treated as such by the author.

187MarthaJeanne
Sep 11, 2020, 6:34 pm

To judge by the covers, yes.

188gabriel
Sep 14, 2020, 12:45 am

Do we have thoughts on over-broad series or a "series" made up of series? I eliminated the "Oxford Histories" series I noted above @177; but I thought I'd mention Ladybird Books which appears simply to be a listing of the entire publication history of Ladybird, despite the fact that Ladybird typically publishes in distinct series. Perhaps this is an instance where the publisher is so distinct you may as well treat it all as a series.

189Conkie
Sep 15, 2020, 7:25 pm

>188 gabriel: etc...

What is the "harm" if a series (or publisher series) exists on LibraryThing, but isn't actually a "true" series by some peoples definition?

I've been on LT almost from the beginning. The way things were handled in the early years may not be as relevant (or important) on the current LibraryThing.

The now deleted "Oxford Histories" was completed mostly by one LT'er... 63 of 70 (90%). Was that person consulted?
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2795&showdeleted=1

Now Ladybird Books is being discussed for possible deletion. 497 of 807 (62%) was completed by one LT'er.
https://www.librarything.com/nseries/723/Ladybird-Books

I hunt and peck LT to find authors that I can help clean up and flesh out for other LTers use, because the BULK of LTers catalog their books (etc.) and look for information about additional titles by authors, but do not use it for more than that.

I know I've made mistakes on LT; that's how I learned the ways of LT... but I'd like readers of this TALK stream to re-consider the current scouring of LT to eliminate someone else's LARGE amount of work because it doesn't fit a strict definition of series. I don't think it is right to do that. Especially when most users don't wade into the TALK section to read about these types issues. Just think, one day they may log on and *POOF!*, work gone.

I thought this section of TALK was about corralling help and/or asking for ideas about fixing and improving series, not eliminating them. :(

190Collectorator
Sep 15, 2020, 7:36 pm

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

191gilroy
Sep 15, 2020, 7:49 pm

>188 gabriel: No, the Oxford Histories should have just been shifted to a Publisher's series and left alone.
Same with Ladybird Books. Make it a publisher's series and leave it alone.
Don't delete unless it's an obvious duplicate.

192amanda4242
Sep 15, 2020, 7:52 pm

>189 Conkie: Just because someone put a lot of work into creating a series doesn't mean that they've created a legitimate series: one person was responsible for adding almost all of the works to the "series" I mentioned in >146 amanda4242:, but a list of albums chosen by Rolling Stone magazine just doesn't meet the LT criteria of a series no matter how much effort someone went to.

This thread was started to help improve series by organizing, filling in, combining, separating, and, if necessary, deleting redundant or spurious series. And if something is deleted that shouldn't be, then it takes exactly two clicks to undo the deletion; and then the person who undoes the deletion can explain in the description field what the series is and why it should stay.

That being said, there is no reason to be overly zealous in deleting series. People should familiarize themselves with the LT definition of a series, ask for opinions, and do some research before deleting something.

Oh, and Ladybird Books looks like a series to me in the same way the For Dummies books are considered a series on LT.

193amanda4242
Sep 15, 2020, 7:56 pm

194gilroy
Sep 15, 2020, 8:09 pm

>193 amanda4242: If it's a series, mark it as a series and again, leave it alone.

195amanda4242
Sep 15, 2020, 8:35 pm

>194 gilroy: It was never changed to a publishers series. I have made zero changes to it and don't plan on making any.

196SandraArdnas
Sep 15, 2020, 8:38 pm

>189 Conkie: While I agree with the general sentiment, I also think just because someone put some time into something doesn't make it a holy cow. If it makes no sense at all, it's not mandatory to preserve it.

In this particular case, I don't think aggregating all world histories in umbrella series is pointless, but including histories of music is. It is completely unrelated, aside from being published by Oxford. Either way, if the series is undeleted and moved to a publisher series, I'd like to point out that subseries relationship cannot be set between series and publisher series (and this is a conglomerate of various Oxford history series)

197Conkie
Sep 15, 2020, 9:28 pm

>190 Collectorator: You're welcome.

>192 amanda4242: and
>196 SandraArdnas:, etc... I didn't say "never delete" in my post. I (just) push back on making decisions to delete, especially when the "series" is populous, based on the "definition" of a series. PERIOD.

In the example of the "Rolling Stone 500 Greatest", when I pushed back I learned there was another "list" here on LT... under the CK's Book Awards (I was unaware of the redundancy*). I then supported the deletion of the "Series" as the "Book Awards" was the more appropriate categorization.

My point is, use caution when deleting an organized "list". Discuss if it can be reclassified. Try to reach out to the Series originator or other LTers whom have worked on it. They could shed light on the "list" and perhaps a better solution/designation can be made. If something can not be quickly resolved, perhaps some sort of flag could be attached to those "Series" that explains there are questions about its existence.... Wikipedia utilizes such designations/notes.

*I tried searching for a Rolling Stone list, but erroneously used a possessive "s" after Stone. (I wish Search was a bit more forgiving).

198amanda4242
Modifié : Sep 15, 2020, 10:03 pm

>197 Conkie: It really didn't matter that there is a CK award page for the Rolling Stone list because it does not fit the LT definition of a series. We should absolutely take time to research before deleting a series, but effort does not make something correct, it just means someone wasted their time doing something wrong.

We can only classify a series as either a regular series or a publishers series. We have a CK awards field, a list feature, and we have tags and collections for organizing our personal libraries; series should not be misused as these other features.

199gabriel
Modifié : Sep 16, 2020, 1:48 pm

>189 Conkie:

With all due respect, I put the Oxford Histories up for discussion before deleting it. Nobody did. And it's reversible in any event.

That being said, I did a little more research before deleting it. OUP has a long, long list of the History series it publishes . There is no general listing for "Oxford Histories", and I think that's determinative - it's not even a publisher series. The LT series was an agglomeration of series simply based on the title style.

I don't agree that series are such precious artefacts that we need to create a lengthy process before doing anything with them. If there's real uncertainty about what an editor was trying to do it makes sense to reach out - that was not the case here.

>192 amanda4242:

I think your analogy to the Dummies series makes sense. The only significant difference is Ladybird uses a whole bunch of sub-series within its works, and you're right, that doesn't mean the broader series isn't a true series.

>185 Maddz:

I think your suggestion to treat multi-volume collected works (or similar collections) as publisher series makes complete sense. I've adopted it.

200gabriel
Sep 18, 2020, 1:35 pm

>139 amanda4242:
>183 MarthaJeanne:
>179 spiphany:

Seeing that the various language Asterix series have been resurrected, we should renew this discussion.

The first point is that policy, as it stands, does not support different publication order series for every single publisher (regardless of language). The overarching principle is that a series should be a single series - and enabling the combination of different language series was one of the major reasons for the new series system as a whole. As a concession or exception, where both the publication order and the chronological order are significant, both series should be retained - at least for now. It's my understanding that eventually LT intends to allow users to have their own default sort order, allowing for the combination of chronological and publication order series. Tim describes the canonical example of Narnia as being exceptional: "Narnia is a special case because there isn't just an order and a publication order, there are two competing numberings. There aren't many series like that. But there are some."

Put simply, publication order means original publication order. That's what the publication data draws from, and it's what everyone has been talking about in this long, long conversation. The only time I've seen someone raise the possibility of multiple publication orders from different languages Tim's reaction was hardly favourable: "Ugh."

Another reason to keep series like Asterix and Tintin as single series is that having different series for every language will create an utter mess for both the general series data and individual users' data. (And, actually, multiple series in a single language: we currently have two Welsh-language numbering reflecting two publishers - Asterix (Dalen) and Asterix (Gwasg y Dref Wen)). Asterix has been translated into at least 116 different languages and dialects. Tintin has been translated into at least 75 languages. I think it's safe to say the vast majority of these these differ in having different volumes translated or were published in different orders.

And finally, we have no evidence whatsoever that any of these publication orders have actually been renumbered by the publishers. Even if some turn out to be actually renumbered, I don't think that's significant for reasons I mentioned above, but at most that would make a distinct publisher series, though I am loath to create publisher series that are simply variations on true series.

201Maddz
Sep 18, 2020, 1:54 pm

I wonder if translated works with different volume splits or orderings should be turned into publisher series. It might save some grief...

202amanda4242
Sep 18, 2020, 1:59 pm

>200 gabriel: The first point is that policy, as it stands, does not support different publication order series for every single publisher

It doesn't forbid it.

enabling the combination of different language series was one of the major reasons for the new series system as a whole

Yes, but that's for series where the only difference *is* the language.

It's my understanding that eventually LT intends to allow users to have their own default sort order, allowing for the combination of chronological and publication order series.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, but we can revisit combining publication and chronological series if it does.

Narnia is a special case because there isn't just an order and a publication order, there are two competing numberings. There aren't many series like that. But there are some.

The numbers stamped on copies of the Narnia books differ by publisher. Asterix is another series where this happens.

publication order means original publication order

Does it? Then why do we have the option to add multiple dates in the original publication field?

Another reason to keep series like Asterix and Tintin as single series is that having different series for every language will create an utter mess for both the general series data and individual users' data

Set the various series as reorderings on the series page and the mess is cleaned up. And I find it no more messy for my personal series data to have multiple listings for a series which have been published with different numbering than I do having multiple listings for publication/chronological/author's suggested/etc. order; actually, I find it less messy.

we have no evidence whatsoever that any of these publication orders have actually been renumbered by the publishers.

Yes, we do. I have personally seen copies of Asterix which are numbered differently than they were in their original publication.

at most that would make a distinct publisher series, though I am loath to create publisher series that are simply variations on true series.

I can see the argument for making them publishers series, but please don't. There's no way to set relationships between regular and publishers series as far as I know.

203MarthaJeanne
Sep 18, 2020, 2:17 pm

But the Narnia series is not that unusual in having separate chronological and publication orders. Another, much bigger example is Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books. She has skipped around a lot.

204amanda4242
Sep 18, 2020, 2:21 pm

>203 MarthaJeanne: Narnia doesn't just have different publication and chronological orders; they are published with different order numbers on them, like Asterix.

205gabriel
Modifié : Sep 18, 2020, 3:57 pm

>202 amanda4242:
The first point is that policy, as it stands, does not support different publication order series for every single publisher

It doesn't forbid it.

The best practices wiki currently reads:"Combine multiple language series into one, i.e. there should be just one series, not one per language." This is the general principle. The only exception is the publication order/chronological order.

Enabling the combination of different language series was one of the major reasons for the new series system as a whole

Yes, but that's for series where the only difference *is* the language.

This is your own gloss on the rationale. There were no exceptions given, and when the possibility of an exception was raised, it was dismissed.

publication order means original publication order

Does it? Then why do we have the option to add multiple dates in the original publication field?

I mean, there's a reason the field is called "original publication date". That it happens to be used for slightly more esoteric purposes doesn't alter its core function. And the publication order that is used in the series page allows for just one value - and everyone discussing it talked about the "original publication order". But more generally, show me where people debating or discussing publication order vs. chronological order have meant something other than original publication order. The only time I found, the idea was very quickly dismissed. We could have at least three publication orders for Tintin, just in French: serialisation, B&W books and colour books.

Another reason to keep series like Asterix and Tintin as single series is that having different series for every language will create an utter mess for both the general series data and individual users' data

Set the various series as reorderings on the series page and the mess is cleaned up. And I find it no more messy for my personal series data to have multiple listings for a series which have been published with different numbering than I do having multiple listings for publication/chronological/author's suggested/etc. order; actually, I find it less messy.

As happy as I am that you are perfectly content with multiple series in your own records, these discussions have been replete with complaints about a bunch of irrelevant or duplicative series showing up in users' data. And, regardless of how the series are resolved (and it's not simple if you have say, 30 Asterix series - you have to set all the overlapping series on each series page to reordered. That's 29 operations plus 28 plus 27, etc.) you still have author pages and all the works pages listing a bunch of duplicative series. And for myself, I want my series data to show the actual series I have, as far as is possible. It's not perfect, because of the occasional Narnia-type series, but that's far better than a couple dozen Tintin series, a couple dozen Asterix, etc...

we have no evidence whatsoever that any of these publication orders have actually been renumbered by the publishers.

Yes, we do. I have personally seen copies of Asterix which are numbered differently than they were in their original publication.

Well, now we do - none was or is listed on any of the different series pages. Which of the particular language series do you know were renumbered? I don't recall ever seeing these series being numbered in either the English or French publications - perhaps they are in some editions I haven't seen. I am willing to compromise and set actually renumbered series to publisher series, but I don't think we should do so on mere supposition.

There are other irremediable problems with most alternate-publication-order series in addition to the ones I outlined above. In most Asterix translations, not all works are translated, so it is not as much a reordering as it is a selection of the series. The works that happen to be translated into Welsh or Swedish or whatever are not the whole of the series, so those series pages are incomplete, just as the series page for Solzhenitsyn's The Red Wheel would be incomplete if it omitted the works that haven't been translated into English. And what happens when a publisher translates an earlier work in the series and renumbers its series? Do we end up with three Welsh-language Asterix series, with pre-2010 and post-2010 numbering with one of the publishers, for example? This is where this logic would end up.

206amanda4242
Sep 18, 2020, 4:09 pm

>205 gabriel: Which of the particular language series do you know were renumbered? I don't recall ever seeing these series being numbered in either the English or French publications - perhaps they are in some editions I haven't seen.

Look at the different covers for Asterix in Britain. It was the eighth book published, but there are English covers which have a three, a Norwegian (?) with a five, and a Polish one with a seven.

Again, please don't make them publishers series as that will create other problems.

I and others have stated our reasons for keeping multiple series in this case. You disagree with those reasons and it's becoming clear that no one will be converted to the opposing position. I have no wish to continue this discussion.

207gabriel
Sep 18, 2020, 4:56 pm

>203 MarthaJeanne:

I agree Tim probably overstated the rareness of Narnia-like cases, but I think his point was to emphasise the high threshold for creating multiple series of what is, in truth, the same series - Narnia not only has different potential orderings, but it also has strong constituencies preferring both orderings. An example doesn't spring immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are series with differing chronological/publication orders where there isn't a real constituency for both orders.

Another point: publication order is relevant in Narnia (and generally) because it almost always reflects the order in which the author wrote the books. If publishers simply published series in a random order, it would be irrelevant. But publication orders of translations don't reflect this important connection to authorial/stylistic development.

208gilroy
Sep 19, 2020, 1:03 pm

Okay, this thread is getting too long. I'm starting a new one.
Ce sujet est poursuivi sur New Series System: Calls for Help! #2.