Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

123 views
Serieses! > Series numbering

Comments Showing 1-37 of 37 (37 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nickname (last edited Jun 03, 2013 12:30PM) (new)

Nickname | 70 comments I just started reading these books, and I have two questions about this series.
In Italy every book was splitted by the same publisher in two or three books. After that Mondadori (the publisher) published the books in other two edition: a complete edition that contains the first two books originally splitted and a special edition with improved translation of the original book.
For ex. for the first book A game of Thrones we have

Il trono di spade 1.1 (Book one part one)
Il Grande inverno 1.2 (Book one part two)
Il Trono di Spade-Il Grande inverno (Book 1-2 IT 1 ENG)
Il Trono di Spade special edition (Book 1 ENG)

The third book in Italy was splitted in three books if we
indicate them as
3.1 for the first part, 3.2 for the second and 3.3 for the last we have a problem with an english edition, in which A storm of Sword was splitted in two parts numbered 3.1 and 3.2.

So my questions are

1) How to handle these issues with series?
2) How to include series information in titles? We have to use the original numbering, the italian or what else?

In the past I remember that the librarian manual suggested to use (A song of ice and fire, part one of two) or something similar but now these lines was missed. Why?


message 2: by Andrea (last edited Jun 04, 2013 02:32AM) (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments Good questions.
One of the main problems with series numbering, in this specific case, is (as mentioned by Nickname), "A Storm of Swords" (and presumably, there'll be a similar issue with A Dance with Dragons, considering the length of the book).
"A Storm of Swords" was published in three different ways in Italy, as perfecly explained on the Wikipedia page:
1st edition: split in 3 books
2nd edition: split in 2 books (like some english editions)
3rd edition: entire book.

Some way of specification for how many parts a book is split into seems to be needed. Some months ago, the format "#X, Part Y of Z" was a standard, and covers apparently every possible case. We're wondering why this standard was abandoned, if it was (officially). Unfortunately, the "combine" page for GRR Martin's book now looks (at best) MESSY.


message 3: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments At the moment we have created a series for the Italian edition.
It this way we can inform the readers of all the different versions (first and second edition, boxsets). We have set the second edition as primary, in order to maintain the original numeration.

For the first edition we have added a secondary numeration (like the one used in French, German and Portuguese books). In every book of this Italian edition, the reader will find in the first page the list of the previous books in the series published in Italy. With this numeration we can be consistent only with the first Italian edition.

Which solution do you suggest us: primary numeration for the second edition and secondary for the first or using the old standard "part x of y"?


message 4: by Andrea (last edited Jun 04, 2013 06:17AM) (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments I just wanted to state that I'm strongly against (even) the concept of "secondary numeration". I don't see any real need to add it, because it ends up confusing users when they try to understand how the original books were split (since it's likely to find several books with the same italian title, the same apparent series numeration but different content).
There are (were?) other methods for helping users who want to follow the correct sequence of the splitted editions, without assigning to each splitted part a new "integer", hence forcing the artificial numeration.


message 5: by Moloch (new)

Moloch | 2670 comments bump


message 6: by Cait (last edited Jun 06, 2013 07:35PM) (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments I'll take a look at it....

(ETA: This is going to be a multi-day project. This is a series which has been published in a lot of ways!)


message 7: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments Cait wrote: "I'll take a look at it....

(ETA: This is going to be a multi-day project. This is a series which has been published in a lot of ways!)"


Thanks.
Yes, it's a complex case, but in fact the involved series numbering ambiguities/issues are the same for ALL series published in "splitted" books. The italian edition of "A Song of Ice and Fire" is just amplifying these issues.
I think something should be fixed/decided/"coded in the Guide" to avoid uncontrolled spread of similar messy series all around GR (I'm afraid the phenomenon has already started...)


message 8: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Yes, many of the series with books which are split in translation have similar issues. This one is tricky mostly because it's so popular that it's had several different numerations and not all of its partial volumes are combined at the moment, so I have to track them all down. Believe me, I have seen worse. :)

There is actually a policy on this already: books should be numbered in a series with the number they are published under. If a book is part 2 of the original book 4 and it is listed as "part 2 of the 4th book", then it should be numbered as "4 part 2". On the other hand, if it is part 2 of the original book 4 but it says it is "the 8th book", then there needs to be a series in which that book is numbered "8". Policy is to create a new series which indicates that it's a secondary listing for the series with a different numeration in order to handle the second case.

For example, this edition says right on its cover that it is "As Crónicas de Gelo e Fogo - Livro Dez", so it has a numbering given: it is book 10. The same content has also been published in this edition which also has a numbering given: it is part 2 of book 5. This isn't artificial numbering: it's the numbering assigned by each publisher, and it is information which we need to track here.


message 9: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments Thanks Cait, your answer is really interesting.
I absolutely agree with you, but there are still some details that need further explanation.

1) What's the EXACT form of the "..part of.." title portion (I assume it has to be identical to the "number" field in the series page) - I clearly remember the form "Part X of Y", I'm almost sure it was specified even in the Guide, but now it seems to bs gone. I found at least 4 different forms now... "#N, X/Y", "#N, Part X/Y", "#N, Part X of Y" and the infamous "#N.X" - lacking info about the total number of parts the book is split into.

2) "..the number they are published under"...I agree; but it's not always easy to determine IF a book is published "under a number" or not. In the particular case of "Le Cronache del Ghiaccio e del Fuoco", the first edition (the one split into several books - 12 in total) has NO explicit numbering anywhere (cover-pages). Each book just lists (obviously) all previous books of the italian edition, in publishing order, but without any number. That's why I called the numbering "artificial".


message 10: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments BTW: I'm absolutely OK with the form used for the two books you linked, "#N, X/Y" - it's nearly language-independant and keeps all needed information. But I'm afraid it's not consdered as a real standard, as easily verified in the "combine" page of Martin's works...


message 11: by Betelgeuse (last edited Jun 07, 2013 10:12AM) (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Cait wrote: "Yes, many of the series with books which are split in translation have similar issues. This one is tricky mostly because it's so popular that it's had several different numerations and not all of i..."

In our case we have Il dominio della regina that our publisher (Mondadori) has numbered as 8. You can find this information for example in Amazon, Google Books and from the official page on the Mondadori web site. (All these pages are in Italian, but you can find in the title the number 8).
The information stated from Andrea in the previous post isn't completely right.

Can we mantain the secondary numeration or we have to re-format all the books with "#N, X/Y"?


message 12: by Nickname (new)

Nickname | 70 comments But we have to specify that books haven't any number printed on it.


message 13: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments Nickname wrote: "But we have to specify that books haven't any number printed on it."

Exactly.
Amazon and Google Books have NOTHING to do with the publisher.
Concerning the Mondadori website, I'm quite surprised because they appear to behave incoherently, since I own the first 7 books in italian and NO ONE contains any new number. They ALL simply contain the original ttitle in english and, in SOME cases, on the rear of the book there's something like "...this is the third book of the saga...", which I don't consider a new numbering but simply a statement about the SEQUENCE of the books, a completely different matter.

...anyway: let's suppose that they had printed big (new) numbers all over the first edition.
The main question remains - how are we supposed to manage titles/serieses/combines in order to:
1) respect author's choices (publisher(s)')
2) provide CLEAR information to GR users
3) avoid messing up all the other existent editions/series


message 14: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Sorry to disturb you again Cait, but as you can see we have some difficulties.

These are the facts summarized:
# inside every single book there is a list (non numbered) of every previous single book in the series
# on the publisher site the books are numbered
# on the cover there isn't a number
# in the description of the book, on the publisher site, the book are numbered, with the same number in the title.
# inside the book the original title is spelled like this: "original title: book # of series", this number is the original one, not the Italian one.
# in the first pages there isn't a indication like "part x of y" (I have asked Andrea about this particular, if he will find this indication in the retro or inside the book I will update this list)

At the moment on Goodreads the Italian readers have some difficulties to follow this series. The old system (part x of y in the title) has generated some confunsion, as Andrea reported in our Italian discussion on Goodreads Italia group.

As you can see from my messages, I am a supporter of including the Italian numeration on Goodreads, because is what the Italian readers find on the publisher site, in library and on the book itself.
For example my library listed Il dominio della regina, the same book as above, like this (link in Italian):
the field "Nota" (note in English) states: "Romanzo fantasy. Ottavo episodio della saga "Cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco" (Fantasy novel. Eighth episode of the saga "A Song of Ice and Fire")

If you need some more information or data, feel free to ask.

I want to thank you for your attention for this particular issue and you patience in dealing with our Italian books.


message 15: by Nickname (new)

Nickname | 70 comments Betelgeuse wrote: "As you can see from my messages, I am a supporter of including the Italian numeration on Goodreads, because is what the Italian readers find on the publisher site, in library and on the book itself. "

I think this is the main question. Both books (the book one part one) and the complete and special edition (which is the originally first book) was indicated as the first book of the saga. But only the Special edition has this information printed in the cover and included in the title.


message 16: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments The title field for each edition can have the series name and number as indicated on that edition, or a reasonably formatted version of that information if the book writes it out in a way difficult to read. For example, if the book says "Ottavo episodio della saga Cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco", it would be reasonable to format that as "(Cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco #8)". The only formatting which should definitely not be used is the decimal notation (such as 4.2), because that's used on Goodreads for short stories set between novels and not for full-length books.

(Note that the series that's in the title field does not actually show on the book page next to the title when you're looking at that edition. You only see the full title field on your own shelves and occasionally in search results or other lists. What shows on the book page is always the primary series for the book; secondary series are listed with the publisher name, page count, and other details (you may need to click on "more details" if it's not displaying). So if a book is #3 part 2/2 in the primary series and #6 in a renumbered publication of the series, for example, all editions of the book would show Primary Series #3 part 2/2 next to the title and all editions of the book would show Secondary Series #6 in the details, regardless of how any particular edition is numbered in its title field. Usually the original publication of a series should be the primary series for a book; occasionally there are cases where a series is overwhelmingly better known by a different numbering, but that's not the case here.)

In the case of these Mondadori editions, if the publisher has numbered them on the website that certainly suggests that they are meant to have integer numbers, even if those numbers are not listed prominently on the book cover. Generally, a series with a definite reading order can be assumed to be numbered in integers; I would only number a book in a series with "N part X/Y" if at least one of the editions clearly indicated that numbering. If there were no split editions of this series which used the "part" numbering, I would not include the split books in the primary series listing at all; I think a lot of the confusion on these books is because some of the split book editions are numbered one way and other editions with the same content are numbered differently. (I would still enter the original title in the original title field with the "part" notation, but that's different from the series listing. It looks like a lot of these editions don't have the original title field fully filled out, which would also help.)


message 17: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Cait wrote: "The title field for each edition can have the series name and number as indicated on that edition, or a reasonably formatted version of that information if the book writes it out in a way difficult..."

Thank you for your precise explanation.

If in the future we will find a similar situation, can we procede with the same method?
If I have understood correctly:
# if the Italian publisher has decided a different numeration (on the cover or in the description of the book or in the first pages) we can create a alternative series, linking it to the original one
# we have to insert the Italian numeration (interger) if the series uses integer
# we have to insert the Italian numeration (part x/y) if the series uses this notation
# on the description field of the original series we have to add the link to the Italian series
# for every book we have to add the original title with all the information included by the Italian publisher (for example in aout case the complete information is "title: book x of series")
# the Italian series must be secondary series, not primary, in the details of every book

The decimal notation is generated from my suggesstion(mea culpa, I'm sorry for the confusion).
In order to understand better with an example:
for the book Tempesta di Spade - Parte prima (the original in English is A Storm of Swords: Steel and Snow) we can add in the field title the notation "Le cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco, #3, Parte 1 di 2" or "Le cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco, #3, Parte 1".
This notation "Le cronache del ghiaccio e del fuoco, #3.1" is wrong.

Thanks again for the patience in dealing with all our different editions.


message 18: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments Thanks Cait, I'm OK with the suggestions.
I'm just curious about where and when exactly the notation "#N part X/Y" (which I agree with) was adopted as a standard here.
I still cant' find it anywhere (my fault).
I think it should be added to the Librarian Guide...


message 19: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Yes, Betelgeuse, that sounds right to me.


message 20: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Andrea wrote: "I'm just curious about where and when exactly the notation "#N part X/Y" (which I agree with) was adopted as a standard here."

Hmm. I know it's been discussed in the threads about the series notation, but I can't pull up an exact reference. The information in the manual is still somewhat in flux from the introduction of the series objects a couple of years ago. I may try and put together a paragraph to be added to the manual on this subject, since you're right that it would be very useful.


message 21: by Nickname (new)

Nickname | 70 comments Thank you, Cait!


message 22: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Hi Cait, I'm very sorry but all your hard work on the original series has been deleted by another librarian.
The description with all the translated name, the link to the different number, the original splitted books are disappeared.

I have found with the Way Back Machine an old description (march 2013) with the different translated name and some books.

Do you suggest that we restore this description, adding the links to the different translated series, and contact the librarian that has made all the changes? Or is possibile di undo all his work?
Because in the librarian changelog I can't find this option for the series.


message 23: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Betelgeuse wrote: "Hi Cait, I'm very sorry but all your hard work on the original series has been deleted by another librarian.
The description with all the translated name, the link to the different number, the orig..."


Oh for !@#@#$#%%@#!!#$%@!@!

No, there's no way to undo changes to a series. Do you want to tackle restoring it and talking to the librarian who made the changes? I don't have the energy for it right now.


message 24: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Cait wrote: "Oh for !@#@#$#%%@#!!#$%@!@!

No, there's no way to undo changes to a series..."


Sure, no problem.
In the message I will add also a link to this discussion. In this way if he wants to add some thoughts or explain why he has made these chages, he can let everyone know.
Can I alert the librarian to check in the future if the changes are made by a super-librarian? If so he must not delete the information, but only add new data following the previous format.

I remember that the series with a different numbering were the Italian, the French and the German ones. Maybe also the Spanish or Portoguese. I need to check with Google in order to find the right links.


message 25: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments I don't remember one thing: you have also added the splitted translated books in the original series or not?
If so, which notation have you used for the filed number: "book 3 part 1" or "book 3 (1/2)"?


message 26: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Betelgeuse wrote: "Can I alert the librarian to check in the future if the changes are made by a super-librarian?"

Generally it's not a good idea to wipe out any librarian's changes.

If so, which notation have you used for the filed number: "book 3 part 1" or "book 3 (1/2)"?

Some of the split parts were numbered that way and some weren't; I don't remember which were which, but if you can find a cached page it should have it. The notation is "book 3 part 1/2" (the "part" clarifies what the fraction means and there were some books which were split into both 2 parts and 3 parts, so you need the 1/2 and 1/3 distinct).


message 27: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Cait wrote: "Some of the split parts were numbered that way and some weren't; I don't remember which were which, but if you can find a cached page it should have it. The notation is "book 3 part 1/2" (the "part"..."

Ok thank you.
The cached page that I have found has 3 different notations, I will uniform it as "book 3 part 1/2" .


message 28: by Betelgeuse (last edited Jun 27, 2013 12:15PM) (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments I have found other series modified by the same librarian:
* Wheel of Time (he has removed boxsets, short novels and translated name from the description) - [RESTORED]
* Harry Potter (he has removed boxsets and splitted books) - [RESTORED]
* The Mortal Instruments (he has removed translated name from the description and boxsets) - [RESTORED]
* The Vampire Diaries(he has removed translated name from the description and boxsets) - [RESTORED]
* The Stormlight Archive (he has removed splitted books) - [RESTORED]
* Le Chardon et le Tartan (he has deleted the entire series) - [RESTORED]

I will try to restore some data. (I will update this post with the progress of my work)


message 29: by Andrea (new)

Andrea Bampi (badger28) | 11 comments That guy HAS to be stopped....


message 30: by Monique (new)

Monique (kadiya) | 1099 comments Has someone sent him a private message about this?


message 31: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments I have restored all the series modified.

I have some problem with Wheel of Time, because the cached page is too old (december 2012).
This book From the Two Rivers: The Eye of the World, Part 1 is "book 1 part 1/2"?
The boxsets are 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9. There are also other boxsets?


message 32: by Nickname (new)

Nickname | 70 comments Betelgeuse wrote: "Hi Cait, I'm very sorry but all your hard work on the original series has been deleted by another librarian.
The description with all the translated name, the link to the different number, the orig..."


Please contact the GR support!


message 33: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Monique wrote: "Has someone sent him a private message about this?"

Yes, I have sent him a message yesterday evening, including a link to this discussion. In this way he can ask questions about the right behaviour for a librarian.
I have asked him to not delete important information and data, because other librarians have spent a lot of time in order to write them.
I have reminded him that boxsets and novels are parts of a series and can be listed in the series page. And that for every series in Goodreads in the field description is important to add the translated name (when is possible), links to the translated series with different numbering and links to prequel, sequel and/or additional series.


message 34: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Nickname wrote: "Please contact the GR support!
..."


Do you think that we need to wait for his answer before contacting the GR support?
Maybe this situation can be settled if he will read this discussion.


message 35: by Monique (new)

Monique (kadiya) | 1099 comments Thanks! I wasn't sure if he had been or not.

Betelgeuse wrote: "Do you think that we need to wait for his answer before contacting the GR support?
Maybe this situation can be settled if he will read this dis..."


I concur, especially if the changes he made were all before the private message.


message 36: by Betelgeuse (new)

Betelgeuse | 16 comments Monique wrote: "I concur, especially if the changes he made were all before the private message. ..."

Yes, all the changes have a date between two days ago and six months ago.


message 37: by Monique (new)

Monique (kadiya) | 1099 comments Sorry, somehow I misread what you said. I meant that I think we should wait to hear back from him before contacting Support. Yikes, I have to be more careful.


back to top