I've updated the book combining help page

DiskuteraCombiners!

Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

I've updated the book combining help page

1amanda4242
aug 16, 2020, 6:55 pm

The book combining help page has been updated for the first time in over eight years! It now explains how to use the "new" workbench feature!

Please take a look at it, and fix any errors or omissions I may have made.

https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Book_combining

2lilithcat
Redigerat: aug 16, 2020, 7:00 pm

>1 amanda4242:

An older reason, hash collision, no longer happens to new books

Define this or change the wording. I have no idea what you mean by a "hash collision".

Chris has indicated . . .

Tell them who "Chris" is! Most people don't know the names of the staff.

3amanda4242
Redigerat: aug 16, 2020, 7:11 pm

>2 lilithcat: That part's from the previous version and I have no idea what it means. It doesn't seem important anymore, so maybe delete it?

ETA: I just looked at the revision history and it looks like the stuff about whatever the hell hash collision is got added in 2008. I think it's safe to remove information on something that hasn't been an issue in a dozen years.

4lilithcat
aug 16, 2020, 7:10 pm

>3 amanda4242:

If it's not important, then, yes, delete it. Unless someone comes along and explains it and gives a reason not to.

5amanda4242
aug 16, 2020, 7:13 pm

6lorax
aug 17, 2020, 10:01 am

Gosh, if only there was a way of finding out what something is when you don't know! Even *asking* rather than being dismissive, if you for some reason don't want to do a search.

7amanda4242
Redigerat: aug 17, 2020, 11:09 am

>6 lorax: I take it you're referring to the removal of the section on hash collision? There was a long technical explanation of what it is, a mention saying there's nothing that can be done about it unless the book owner changes the title or author of their copy, and this line at the end:
A few months before 9/9/08, LT switched to a different hash system so new hash collisions no longer occur.

If you believe it necessary to have four paragraphs on this subject, please feel free to undo the deletion.

8lorax
aug 17, 2020, 11:55 am

No, I'm referring to the "whatever the hell that is" dismissal. It's no longer a live issue, so we don't need the text on it, but complaining that you don't know what it is just seems odd. We all have lots of things that we don't know what they are; most of the time people don't take mentions of them as a personal affront.

9amanda4242
aug 17, 2020, 12:05 pm

>8 lorax: Wow, wondering how you read that as me taking personal affront instead of me just not knowing what the hell it is.

10Collectorator
Redigerat: aug 17, 2020, 2:28 pm

Medlemmem har stängts av.

11karenb
sep 15, 2020, 3:16 pm

>1 amanda4242: Thank you for updating the wiki!

121Carex
okt 5, 2020, 11:03 am

Since this string is recently active I'll insert a related question here. Looking for Guidance on combining editions, particularly new editions "revised and expanded", sometimes with a new title sometimes not. If author changes definitely a new work. I am editing a series and the first book in the series has been expanded to include a broader scope of information twice, has had the title changed (expanded) each time but retained the series designation 1 (assigned by publisher). Cranbrook Institute of Science

13scott_beeler
okt 10, 2020, 12:02 pm

>12 1Carex: I believe there is no hard-and-fast rule on treating revised editions and they are handled on a case-by-case basis depending on how significant the edits are. If there are only very minor edits then it's probably fine to lump the two editions together; if there are significant edits making the new editions substantially different, it is probably best kept as a separate work (with a Disambiguation Notice to that effect, and possibly a Work Relationship defined between the two). Obviously this is a sliding scale and different users may interpret things differently, so the site is not entirely consistent in how it treats these.

Reading between the lines it sounds like your case is a fairly large revision/expansion so I would keep them as separate, related works.

If the revisions are minor but the title is changed, they can still be combined. Put the different titles into the work page under Original Title and Alternative Titles.

For series designations of revised editions, I personally would note it as such ("1 (revised)" instead of just a second "1").

14MarthaJeanne
okt 10, 2020, 12:22 pm

https://www.librarything.com/work/4776488

The biggest problem here is that you have a total of 7 copies of a work with 6 editions between 1931 and 1974.

You could divide it by title, giving three works that have 1-3 members. Whether that is really an improvement? The canonical title should probably be removed, as none of the three choices is more authoritative than the others.

15gabriel
okt 10, 2020, 1:15 pm

>12 1Carex:

I wouldn't separate them out unless someone actually was able to compare them - or it was obvious from publisher's descriptions.

161Carex
okt 11, 2020, 9:30 am

Thanks folks, when I have time again I think I will split it into three works as the subject matter expands with each new title. At least two of the titles will include editions with minor changes.
Does anyone have strong opinions or care to vote on how to designate the three works that will now be listed as the first work in the series. Examples 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (personally I don't like this due to the association with modern digital pagination); 1a, 1b, 1c; 1, 1 revised, 1 revised again; or any other creative solutions.