putting a comma in a series title

[Nyx]

Hi there!

It may be a minor question but which is the correct way when adding the title of a series? Putting a comma between the series name and the series number in the brackets or not doing so?

Just to come up with an example:

Would Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter, #1) or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter #1) be the right one in this case?

I've seen examples of both in practice, that's why I'm curious about it.

[Miriam]

Either is acceptable. I'll put one in if most of the other books in the series have one, but I don't bother with others.

[Melanie]

Either way is fine. I typically only change them so it's consistent across all books in the series.

[Nyx]

Thanks!

[Dobby]

The previous policy was to use a comma. After some software changes, the policy was updated to omit the comma. Since so many records had the comma, the use of the comma was made optional.

From the Librarian Manual: Book edit page – the title field, "series" subsection:

Place the series information in parentheses after the title and any subtitle or transliteration. If the book is numbered in the series, place the number after the series name with the # symbol in front of it. (Use the same conventions for series numbering in titles as is used in the series object.) Previous conventions used a comma after the series name and before the number; this is also acceptable. If formatted in this fashion, the parenthetical part of the title will be replaced by the actual series object's name and number on the book page as a link to the series.

Since the series name/number link is shown on the book record page without the comma, I use the current convention of omitting the comma.

You can see the confusion caused by lack of consistency in Goodreads' own policy wobbling.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Here is Rivka on the comma question:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Yes, I realize this was in 2014, but her last sentence is the one I've always remembered:

And to be clear, both with and without the comma are currently accepted formats.

[lethe]

Dobby wrote: "You can see the confusion caused by lack of consistency in Goodreads' own policy wobbling."

Yep.

Personally, I prefer the look without a comma, so when adding a series, I always follow the "newer" policy.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "I always follow the "newer" policy.
"

I always follow the one with the fewer keystrokes. ;-)

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "I always follow the "newer" policy.
"

I always follow the one with the fewer keystrokes. ;-)"

So you do too :-)

[annob [on hiatus]]

lethe wrote: "Personally, I prefer the look without a comma, so when adding a series, I always follow the "newer" policy."

Me too. I wish the phrasing in the Librarian Manual could be updated so that any edit should strive to be without the comma (newer style), not to add it back in if it's 'missing'. The Comma War has been going on for years and years between Librarians. I wish to see it end, and the edit workload directed towards more useful corrections.

[lethe]

annob wrote: "lethe wrote: "Personally, I prefer the look without a comma, so when adding a series, I always follow the "newer" policy."

Me too. I wish the phrasing in the Librarian Manual could be updated so t..."

Yes to all of this. It is silly to have a new convention and then still allow series titles to be added according to the old convention (I'm not talking about having to correct existing editions).

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I thought staff was clear: either is acceptable.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought staff was clear: either is acceptable."

That is exactly the point: staff should make clear that for new additions, the newer notation is preferred (why else was it changed?).

As annob says, since it was introduced, there is a Comma War going on: librarians who prefer one over the other and do not hesitate to change existing notations back and forth. Stupid and a waste of time.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "That is exactly the point: staff should make clear that for new additions, the newer notation is preferred (why else was it changed?)."

I don't think it *was* changed is my point. Either is allowed. Rivka was quite clear about that. See above her 2014 post. Note that 2014! More than 8 years ago (if my math is correct).

[lethe]

According to the Manual article, it was changed:

Previous conventions used a comma after the series name and before the number [emphasis mine]

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

You left off the rest of that:

Previous conventions used a comma after the series name and before the number; this is also acceptable. [emphasis mine]

[lethe]

Yes, we know that is also acceptable. It doesn't change the fact that there is a *previous* convention and a *newer* convention.

Staff's sitting on the fence is what we are complaining about and what is causing the edit wars.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "Staff's sitting on the fence is what we are complaining about and what is causing the edit wars.
"

Did you read that? There is no "sitting on the fence". Staff has been quite clear that there should be no - zero! - editing wars. Both ways are acceptable. The comma isn't the issue, the issue is that the wording of the series in the title match the series name. It should also match, when possible, the language of the edition.

[lethe]

I think we are talking past each other. The fact that staff won't commit to one notation causes librarians who prefer one notation over the other to keep editing them (against policy). The comma *is* the issue, because some edit it out and others edit it in (not changing anything else), ad infinitum.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

If librarians are changing it, then they should lose their librarian status, because they are doing edits *against* policy. Period.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Period."

Not a comma? :-P

[Abcdarian]

I sometimes change it to match other books on a series page; neatnik instinct. Actually it would be good for me if I lost librarian status as I'd have a whole lot more time to do something physical with my day. ;-) (Not offering an opinion otherwise. Peace out.)

[lethe]

Abcdarian wrote: "Actually it would be good for me if I lost librarian status as I'd have a whole lot more time to do something physical with my day. ;-)"

Ah, but not being able to add books anymore! The horror. :)

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Abcdarian wrote: "I sometimes change it to match other books on a series page; neatnik instinct."

You admit you have violated GR policy? Are you planning to stop?

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "Ah, but not being able to add books anymore! The horror. :)
"

Nothing requires you to add books. I think that policy is abhorent, so I don't respond to those requests. (Abhorent, because of the burden it places on unpaid staff. That's what volunteer librarians are, by the way - unpaid staff. I'm not unhappy with being able to do those edits that appeal to me, but I find that adding books policy burdensome to volunteers.)

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Ah, and here is another instance where members can't add valid books, but the import burdens librarians by adding invalid books.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Abcdarian wrote: "I sometimes change it to match other books on a series page; neatnik instinct."

You admit you have violated GR policy? Are you planning to stop?"

This is not a violation of GR policy. I'm quite sure rivka has mentioned somewhere that it is allowed to make the notation matching among editions.

ETA Found a thread where she says that: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "Ah, but not being able to add books anymore! The horror. :)
"

Nothing requires you to add books. I think that policy is abhorent, so I don't respond to those requests. (Abhorent, bec..."

I was thinking of the books I own and/or want to read that are not in the database yet.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "I'm quite sure rivka has mentioned somewhere that it is allowed to make the notation matching among editions."

Rivka, in the link provided above in Comment #6:

Since it is still acceptable to have the comma, I'm not sure why you were removing them to start with. I usually add the comma, when I am doing edits (although not always), and would be slightly irritated if I saw someone going through and changing the books I had added commas to.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "I was thinking of the books I own and/or want to read that are not in the database yet."

And this is what Goodreads prevents all non-librarians from doing. While GR messes up the database on its own doing.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "This is not a violation of GR policy. I'm quite sure rivka has mentioned somewhere that it is allowed to make the notation matching among editions."

And I see I commented in that thread that maybe consistency is OK, as I had not thought of that aspect. I'm not sure I still believe that.

I do fix series names in titles when it didn't match the name of the series. I do not add series names in titles where it wasn't already included.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "I'm quite sure rivka has mentioned somewhere that it is allowed to make the notation matching among editions."

Rivka, in the link provided above in Comment #6:

Since it is still acc..."

So that has been superseded by rivka's 2018 comment (see the link in my msg #27). We all live and learn.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

In that comment, she also says

So is changing some of the parts of a series to match others.

But that isn't always correct. Case in point was a thread recently where a series was called one thing in the UK and another, with the *same* books, a different name in the US. This, not even a different language. I would be very careful about doing such changes.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "In that comment, she also says

So is changing some of the parts of a series to match others.

But that isn't always correct. Case in point was a thread recently where a series was called one thing..."

She is talking about the comma there.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "She is talking about the comma there."

Fair enough. Not sure why some have interest for such nonsense. (Though I'm fairly confident the majority of people would wonder why any of us do any of this.)