same "authors" (wikia, wikipedia)?

[[deleted user]]

https://www.goodreads.com/search?utf8...

are they the same, should the two "authors" be combined?

[Beth]

They are already the same author. They appear to be different editions of the same work. Looks like they should be combined, to me.

[[deleted user]]

Beth wrote: "They are already the same author. They appear to be different editions of the same work. Looks like they should be combined, to me."

Two diff authors:
Source Wikipedia
Source Wikia

I realize the book is probably the same. I'm just using it for an example to show the two "authors". I was wondering if the authors should be combined.

[Beth]

Ah...heck. I think I looked at the same book twice, which is a neat trick, since only one has a cover image. ::smh::

Looks like the correct "author" is Source Wikia. When I attempt a search on the other one, the results all show that, rather than the Wikipedia. My two cents. I'm not sure they should be combined, since I believe the same type documents are put together from that source, but I would change it to Wikia, in this case. Just my two cents.

[[deleted user]]

Beth wrote: ...but I would change it to Wikia, in this case. Just my two cents."

Thank-you for the resp.

[John]

I'm pretty sure this "author" is some sort of spammer. If you look at the most recent "books" of his, and their descriptions, it's pure spam.

[lethe]

John wrote: "I'm pretty sure this "author" is some sort of spammer. If you look at the most recent "books" of his, and their descriptions, it's pure spam."

It has already been established several times over that these are considered books according to GR.

[Muzaffer]

Normally all of them should delete the ones who added by Source Wikia, Source Wikipedia and it's not only for English "Kaynak Wikipedia" is the Turkish version of this it's automated and probably the same for all languages. It's serious than we thought.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

As was stated above, these are valid books. They should not be deleted.