Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Policies & Practices > What about [abridged] or [illustrated] in book titles?

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sandi (last edited Feb 06, 2014 10:17PM) (new)

Sandi What about [abridged] or [illustrated] in book titles? From my understanding this is not part of the title and I would mention information like this in the description. I'm asking because I came across some odd looking edits for many editions of Moby Dick that are now called something like "Moby Dick (Usborne Classics Retold) [adaptation]". Is this allowed or not?

message 2: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Not allowed. Titles should be exactly what is on the title page, nothing more. The description is the proper place to indicate whether something is an adaptation.

The librarian should be messaged, if they are doing a lot of improper edits rapidly, or if not messaged, the edits can be flagged.

message 3: by Sandi (new)

Sandi I flagged one of his edits for repeatedly deleting the original publication date of Moby Dick. But that was before I noticed his other edits.

message 4: by Plethora (last edited Feb 06, 2014 09:30PM) (new)

Plethora (bookworm_r) | 359 comments Staff will request you to remove the user information (link) in your post Sandi.

Perhaps they are trying to fix the mess and temporarily renaming them? As children adaptations should not be combined with the original.

Long shot probably, but left staff handle probably. Flag one with a note saying check all Moby Dick edits.

message 5: by Betsy (new)

Betsy | 594 comments I would put the "Usborne Classics Retold" in the edition field, since this is really an imprint. Maybe the "adaptation" could be put in there too.

message 6: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl This is what the LM says about the edition field:

This field is for such things as "2nd edition", "Film Tie-In Edition", "Large Print", "Special Illustrated Edition" and other edition-specific data that belongs neither in the title nor the format fields.

Whatever is in the edition field, if anything, should be used to distinguish that edition from the other editions which are combined together. So for example if there are four editions of an adaptation of "Moby Dick" and they are all from the imprint "Usborne Classics Retold," that shouldn't go in the edition field.

I wouldn't put "adaptation" in the edition field, since everything that is combined on that editions page is going to be an adaptation.

message 7: by Sandi (new)

Sandi Bookworm R wrote: "Staff will request you to remove the user information (link) in your post Sandi."

The Feedback group lists that in the rules, but the Librarian group does not. If it's a rule here as well then someone forgot to add it to the group rules.

message 8: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45451 comments Mod
Please remove the user information, Sandi. It is not permitted in this group.

message 9: by Sandi (new)

Sandi Sure. It'd be great if the rules would actually say so though.

back to top