Title Clarifications

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I come across this type of thing with the public domain authors. The below are examples, and not specific.

1. Author name in title: It would appear that the author name should be removed from a) but not for b)

a) Edith Wharton Novels: The House of Mirth, The Reef, The Custom of the Country, The Age of Innocence

b) Complete Works of Edith Wharton

2. Multiple Works as a subtitle Do the individual titles appear as in a)? What is the proper way of showing them in b) - add to description or librarian note?

a) Three Novels of Old New York: The House of Mirth; The Custom of the Country; The Age of Innocence

b)The Complete Collection of Edith Wharton and Elizabeth Gaskell (Huge Collection Including Ethan Frome, The Age of Innocence, he Touchstone, Cranford, North and South, Sylvia’s Lovers, And More)

3. Multiple Title Formatting: Is there a preference? and does that apply to either #1 or #2 above?

The Choice / Sanctuary / The Triumph of Night

Crucial Instances, & Ethan Frome

Custom of the Country, Ethan Frome, Glimpse of the Moon

[Suzi]

I try to make it match the cover when possible.
If all this is on the cover is: The Complete Works of Andrew Lang, and the reprint house has added every title till it runs out of space, I delete the whole list and put in description if its not already there.

If they are all on the cover, I try to make it fit but usually end up putting "and more"

the tough ones are: The Complete Works of Andrew Lang and the Robert Louis Stevenson New Arabian Nights and The Dr Jonathan Scott Translation of The Arabian Nights. [yes it happened]
- the convenience of ebooks lol - a cataloger's nightmare.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Suzi wrote: "If they are all on the cover, I try to make it fit but usually end up putting "and more"
."

I'm not sure this is policy, which is why I'm asking.

[Renske]

For #3, I think that the first option was explained as the right way, at least somewhere in the past. But if the titles are already in the style of option 3, I do not really feel the need to change it. I wouldn't use option 2 if the & is not already on the cover.

[lethe]

Renske wrote: "For #3, I think that the first option was explained as the right way, at least somewhere in the past. But if the titles are already in the style of option 3, I do not really feel the need to change it. I wouldn't use option 2 if the & is not already on the cover."

Agreed.

[Sandra]

I generally use the 1st option & if its unclear to me I'll change the 2nd & 3rd option to #1, cause I figure if I'm not sure, ordinary mbrs wouldn't be sure either.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "3. Multiple Title Formatting: Is there a preference? and does that apply to either #1 or #2 above?"

The approved separators are listed in the Librarian Manual, somewhat hidden away in the section 'omnibus/boxed sets':

... the preferred separator is a space, a forward slash, and another space; other acceptable separators are commas and ampersands.

The way I interpret the policy, several consecutive separators (comma followed by ampersand) as well as backward slash should be replaced with one of the approved symbols, at least as long as the 'rule breakers' symbols are not visible on the cover art.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "2. Multiple Works as a subtitle Do the individual titles appear as in a)? What is the proper way of showing them in b) - add to description or librarian note?"

This is also detailed in the Librarian manual, section omnibus/boxed sets, and depends on if the omnibus edition have its own title (on the cover art) or not:

If the edition has a separate title, the list of included titles may be treated as a subtitle or it may be omitted (if it is omitted, this information should be listed in the book description field).

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Great responses, and thanks for the manual quotes.