Combining editions which do not have the same content (concerning publications of classics)

[Sanne]

I have a question on the policies of combining editions of classics. Take The Canterbury Tales. This particular example seems to be a mess anyway, as some editions are combined, while others are listed separately under Geoffrey Chaucer's name, without (to my judgement) any method of why some are combined and others are separate.

Though here's my question: not all editions include the entire text. Some leave out fragments, while others publish the entire text, incomplete stories and all. I know for a fact that the edition I read didn't include all the stories, while other editions (with which it is combined) do include all stories and fragments. So what's the rule? Combine all books, regardless of whether they deal with the same text, or do these need separation?

This can be relevant to other old texts which are published in many different ways, and as I'm regularly adding new editions of medieval texts to the database, I'd like to know whether I need to combine them with other editions without knowing whether these editions have the same text.

[Cait]

Only books with the same content should be combined. That's the standard rule.

For something like this with a lot of little parts, an argument could be made for combining editions which are substantially similar, but I would definitely defer to Chaucer fans on what constitutes substantial similarity of content in this case. Certainly complete collections should not be combined with partial collections.

I suspect that the editions are a mess largely because there are a lot of new publications constantly coming in and most librarians are too scared of the mess to tackle it regularly. By all means, have it whatever parts you can.

[Banjomike]

An author like Chaucer can only be kept up to date by an 'expert'. Someone who knows the different editions, translations, etc. Not a casual reader. Especially now that the self-publication crowd can add new, poorly formatted, badly edited, ebook editions whenever they feel the urge.

So what's the rule? Combine all books, regardless of whether they deal with the same text...
ABSOLUTELY NOT

[Sanne]

Thanks a lot for the replies! I'll know how to proceed when I find another edition of the medieval texts I'm adding.

As for the Canterbury Tales, I'm not sure I'll be confident enough to tackle everything, but I can start by adding library notes to the editions for which I can find the exact contents, so future librarians know which are complete editions and which not.

Also: anyone reading this and wanting to do a bit of a project with the Canterbury Tales, feel free to do so or to contact me :)

[Carolyn]

Along these same lines, I was trying to add a new version of the classic 1001 Nights to my bookshelf, (this one: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...)
and when I went in to combine it with an edition that had her name spelled wrong, I found that there are hundreds of other editions that have been changed to her name and grouped all together, when they should not have. Some of them, the title names the translator/adapter, others already have librarian notes that detail the # of stories in a particular edition. Still others have volume numbers on them. all have been combined into one edition under her name.
Does anyone have some time to clean this mess up (and figure out who/where) it went wrong?