A Manual of the Writings in Middle English: Advice Requested
DiscussionsCombiners!
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
1waltzmn
This is an incredible mess, and I'm not sure how aggressive I should be.
This pertains to a series of books (series in the publisher's sense, not in the LibraryThing sense) entitled A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500.
There is some history here. The original was a single big volume with a series of supplements. The book was A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1400 by John Edwin Wells.
This book was so good and useful that eventually it was decided that there was need for a replacement -- not an expansion, an actual replacement. This was the aforementioned A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500. (Note, among other things, the expanded date range.)
This was a major project; instead of a single author, it became a ten volume series with two editors, Burke Severs (who edited the first two volumes) and Albert E. Hartung (who did the rest of the released volumes).
This series is "Based on" the Wells book, but it is not the Wells book.
Rather than explain further, I invite you to look at the Albert E. Hartung author page. It's all volumes of the Manual, but there are sixteen of them, and Hartung only edited eight books. Some of the ISBNs are wrong (today, I was putting my copy of volume six, and LT said the ISBN was that of volume three). Some volumes of the Severs/Hartung series are listed as by Wells, which they are not.
It is an incredible mess.
I can do the combinations as best I can (turning, say, "VOLUME 3" and "Vol 3" into one work). But given the hideous mess that these books are, it's nearly certain to mess up at least one or two people's copies, because of the fouled-up titles and ISBNs. The series assignments are also a mess, which is why I discovered this (there are at least two series involved, and none of the series include all the actual volumes.) So this is a philosophical question: Leave the mess, or be aggressive, and fix as best I can, understanding that it won't entirely fix things and will likely create new problems but will be better than it was.
I suppose you could summarize the question as, to what degree should I "do no harm" and to what degree should I "do the best that I can"?
This pertains to a series of books (series in the publisher's sense, not in the LibraryThing sense) entitled A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500.
There is some history here. The original was a single big volume with a series of supplements. The book was A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1400 by John Edwin Wells.
This book was so good and useful that eventually it was decided that there was need for a replacement -- not an expansion, an actual replacement. This was the aforementioned A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500. (Note, among other things, the expanded date range.)
This was a major project; instead of a single author, it became a ten volume series with two editors, Burke Severs (who edited the first two volumes) and Albert E. Hartung (who did the rest of the released volumes).
This series is "Based on" the Wells book, but it is not the Wells book.
Rather than explain further, I invite you to look at the Albert E. Hartung author page. It's all volumes of the Manual, but there are sixteen of them, and Hartung only edited eight books. Some of the ISBNs are wrong (today, I was putting my copy of volume six, and LT said the ISBN was that of volume three). Some volumes of the Severs/Hartung series are listed as by Wells, which they are not.
It is an incredible mess.
I can do the combinations as best I can (turning, say, "VOLUME 3" and "Vol 3" into one work). But given the hideous mess that these books are, it's nearly certain to mess up at least one or two people's copies, because of the fouled-up titles and ISBNs. The series assignments are also a mess, which is why I discovered this (there are at least two series involved, and none of the series include all the actual volumes.) So this is a philosophical question: Leave the mess, or be aggressive, and fix as best I can, understanding that it won't entirely fix things and will likely create new problems but will be better than it was.
I suppose you could summarize the question as, to what degree should I "do no harm" and to what degree should I "do the best that I can"?
2scott_beeler
I would say that if you're sure there are errors/problems with it now then you should feel free to correct them. It may lead to problems with individual users' libraries where they have incorrect entries but I don't think that should be a block to correcting the main data as much as possible; the users can correct their own entries when they notice this.
In this instance it sounds like it would be two different series as you say (the original and its supplements; and the 10-volume revision). Some entries may need authors added/removed/redefined where they are incorrect. A Work Relationship could be added between entries for the original set and the revised set, if such entries exist (Work Relationships for individual volumes might not be appropriate). And a Disambiguation Notice on some or all of them with some of this information would be helpful to other users.
In this instance it sounds like it would be two different series as you say (the original and its supplements; and the 10-volume revision). Some entries may need authors added/removed/redefined where they are incorrect. A Work Relationship could be added between entries for the original set and the revised set, if such entries exist (Work Relationships for individual volumes might not be appropriate). And a Disambiguation Notice on some or all of them with some of this information would be helpful to other users.
3waltzmn
>2 scott_beeler: I would say that if you're sure there are errors/problems with it now then you should feel free to correct them.
Thank you. Especially for the point about the disambiguation notice -- I would not have thought of that!
Thank you. Especially for the point about the disambiguation notice -- I would not have thought of that!
