talk about your silly problems...

[willaful]

I'm adding series info for some Linda Howard books. There's one two-book edition in which the books are listed in the wrong chronological order, on the title and in the book. (I actually read this one, found it pretty weird.) So would I list it as "Western Ladies, #1 & #2" or "Western Ladies, #2 & #1"?

[Eva-Marie]

I would list it like this: "Western Ladies, #1-2". Usually you see that with more than only two books but it works for this two and I have seen it myself. I think it looks a lot better and matches with the rest of info on series in our system. IMO

[Cait]

I think it would be better to list the numbers in the order in which they appear in the book. So: "(Western Ladies, #2, #1)".

(If you are listing them in order, Eva's right about using #1-2 to group them together, but I don't think that #2-1 is legible.)

(Here are the updated title conventions, by the way. They haven't been moved into the manual -- do you think something specific about this sort of situation should be added?)

[Eva-Marie]

I misunderstood the question I think. I didn't realize the books were "backwards" in the actual book. How strange. I agree that #2-1 would look bad.
I think it would be good to have this added to the manual by the way. It couldn't hurt and would only help. It'd be nice to have the reference available.

[willaful]

I dunno, is it something that comes up often? Surely most publishers are smart enough to put them in the right order. ;-)

[This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For]

I think it's completely unimportant to list the order they appear in the book. What is important is what the book contains, not the order they happened to bind it in. You should definitely list them #1-2.