Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

This Turkish author's real name is "Ömer Zülfü Livanelioğlu". His books in Turkish are published under "Zülfü Livaneli". The English translation: Bliss is using "O.Z. Livaneli".

My understanding of the policy was that primary author on all his books should be changed to "O.Z. Livaneli" and Turkish editions should have "Zülfü Livaneli" as secondary author.

I thought having "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli" (as fuller version) as just one author on book records was acceptable, too (and the option I prefer but another librarian disagrees).

Can you please comment whether this is right or not?

The primary author on the translated book(s) should be set to O.Z. Livaneli for all editions.

I would say O is not Ö, so "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli" doesn't actually include "O.Z. Livaneli" in it.

Although you could argue that, on the technicality that GR's search engine is horrifically weird and so very anglo-centric that it likely still works. You probably need a staff call on this one, particularly if there is a librarian who is likely to just undo your work if you correct it.

Ayshe wrote: "I thought having "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli" (as fuller version) as just one author on book records was acceptable, too"

A complicating factor in this case is that the initial in English does not have the ¨ over the O. I don't know if it matters for searching. I'm also not sure, despite the existing policy, that searching for initials when the name on Goodreads is written in full yields the same results.

I don't know which is the better option. Sometimes Goodreads policy is very annoying, with its preference for the English version of the name :)

Krazykiwi wrote: "The primary author on the translated book(s) should be set to O.Z. Livaneli for all editions."

In that case, O.Z. Livaneli should be the primary name on all editions, including titles that were never translated.

I would say O is not Ö, so "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli" doesn't actually include "O.Z. Livaneli" in it.
I thought for the GR naming standards it is, it's a diacritic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append... and Emy said here "Diacritics are considered optional, so if it refers to the same author you can leave it as diacritic-less"
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

And I think Rivka refused to edit author's name on the GR author's thread to add diacritics (they were on the cover name apparently) once.

Is it "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs" thing? :)

lethe wrote: "Krazykiwi wrote: "The primary author on the translated book(s) should be set to O.Z. Livaneli for all editions."

In that case, O.Z. Livaneli should be the primary name on all editions, including t..."

I'm still trying to pretend I don't know that bit of the rule. If I remember that rule, I'll feel compelled to go fix Аркадий Стругацкий/Arkady Strugatsky.

And should this one István Örkény be Istvan Orkeny? Even searching with Istvan orkeny leads to the original name so it would be redundant doing en English profile, right?

Ayshe wrote: "I would say O is not Ö, so "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli" doesn't actually include "O.Z. Livaneli" in it.
I thought for the GR naming standards it is, it's a diacritic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen..."

It's not a diacritic though, despite what GR might think. Look further down below on that wikipedia page, Ö is considered a separate letter in Turkish, as it is in Swedish.

A diacritic missing is a pretty minor error - naive vs naîve, or fiancée vs fiancee - missing the diacritic there is certainly wrong, but the word's still spelled right. Some people use one on the o in English, for instance zoölogy - in English ö is only a diacritic.

But in Turkish (among other languages) it's a separate letter, pronounced differently and alphabetised differently. Using the wrong letter (swapping an Ö for an O) in languages where it's an actual letter is flat out spelling it wrong, as big a difference as swapping an A for a T or a Z. Or to reuse the examples above, it'd be like spelling naïve -> nauve, and zoölogy -> zoilogy. It's just wrong.

So yeah, I guess it's fingers and thumbs.

Ellie [The Empress] wrote: "And should this one István Örkény be Istvan Orkeny? Even searching with Istvan orkeny leads to the original name so it would be redundant doing en English profile, right?"

That's why I said you might be able to argue that since it will work with GR's broken search engine, it'd be ok. Jo Nesbø is another example (a few of his English translations just put Nesbo).

This looks like a totally meddler issue. Zülfü Livaneli is the correct name: for years he published & sang in Turkey with only this name -by his will, leaving the first Ömer not included in the titles of his books and articles and albums and in everyday life.

You cannot change ALL the author name info, just because his English book name appears a O.Z.

The issue is not an Arabic or Kyric alphabet issue. Or accent signs issue. It is just a simple LOGIC problem. He is Zülfü Livaneli! He prefers not to include that initial name. SO SIMPLE. Why do you make trouble with that?

ehk2 wrote: "This looks like a totally meddler issue. Zülfü Livaneli is the correct name: for years he published & sang in Turkey with only this name -by his will, leaving the first Ömer not included in the tit..."

I suggest that you add whatever you want to those English edition besides the name -It's a common practice. Alongside Zülfü Livaneli, add O.Z. (f.) Livaneli

ehk2 wrote: "Why do you make trouble with that?"

We don't make trouble, Goodreads does, and Goodreads does because the English publisher does. Why did they publish him as O.Z. Livaneli? If Zülfü is too difficult for English audiences, Z. Livaneli would have done just fine.

For me, the best possible solution to multiple profile pages for one author is to make the primary author the one in which most Goodreads users use. If Arab, or Russian or other Slavic users are more than other users, we have to move Arabic, etc. names up. In this website we use Westernised version of Russian classics because non-Russian users outweigh others. In our case, Turkish users are the first massive bloc that read him. The priority is for them.

In every time, you have to decide that issue. In our case, there is no controversy. The majority of his readers are Turkish. You are turning a non-issue into a problem.

Please, do not mess with the author page. Do whatever you want to do in individual book pages.

lethe wrote: "ehk2 wrote: "Why do you make trouble with that?"

We don't make trouble, Goodreads does, and Goodreads does because the English publisher does. Why did they publish him as O.Z. Livaneli? If Zülfü i..."

I guess you're wrong. The issue is a total non-issue. Livaneli is not so famous abroad as he is in Turkey; so that we have to consider whether we change his name, which will affect all the Turkish editions because of that. In English edition, this can be added or done.

Should I change all the Arabic or Russian book infos, just because I read smt from that language? If I want to do that, I restrict myself to the edition I read.

All is so meaningless. Thousands of people have been happy with the name up until one day when a "formalist" librarian takes to the duty of turning wrongs into rights in this digital world -making years-old Zülfü Livaneli into Ömer Zülfü Livaneli. Then when she understands the non-sense, she takes the other option of turning him to O.Z. Livaneli. What a magical whim... What a love of rules.
Whereas just a li,ttle apprehension was enough

There are reasons for the rules on GR, and why books all need to have the same primary author, they are not whims. If your not following them, then you risk losing your librarians rights

ehk2 wrote: "...Thousands of people have been happy with the name up until one day when a "formalist" librarian takes to the duty of turning wrongs into rights in this digital world -making years-old Zülfü Livaneli into Ömer Zülfü Livaneli. Then when she understands the non-sense, she takes the other option of turning him to O.Z. Livaneli. What a magical whim... What a love of rules. ..."

O.Z. Livaneli was already there as primary author on some of the editions before I took "to the duty".

ehk2 wrote: "For me, the best possible solution to multiple profile pages for one author is to make the primary author the one in which most Goodreads users use. If Arab, or Russian or other Slavic users are more than other users, we have to move Arabic, etc. names up. In this website we use Westernised version of Russian classics because non-Russian users outweigh others. In our case, Turkish users are the first massive bloc that read him. The priority is for them."

That is far too complicated to measure and implement. We need one rule for all authors. Having to establish first in which country/language an author is most popular, is undoable.

You name Russian classics, but who says that English speakers read the most Russian classics? There are a million ways to transliterate Dostoyevsky (even in English there are different spellings). Every language has its own version(s). Russians may well outnumber the English when it comes to reading their authors. Maybe the Chinese do too, who knows :)

Paula wrote: "There are reasons for the rules on GR, and why books all need to have the same primary author, they are not whims. If your not following them, then you risk losing your librarians rights"

What is your opinion on this specific issue? What do the rules say? Can you please enlighten me -not just showing me the list of rules -but its application?

Then, can you show my non-rule conforming edits to this days (of over 6000)? How easily you're threating people to kick?

What I say is that the change into O.Z. Livaneli does not conform to rules. What do you say?

ehk2 wrote: "How easily you're threating people to kick? "

Paula is a super-librarian, not staff. She was not threatening you, but warning you. If you do too many edits against policy, you risk losing your librarian rights.

ehk2 wrote: "What I say is that the change into O.Z. Livaneli does not conform to rules. What do you say?"

Policy says that the primary author should be the English version of the author's name. What I think about that does not matter.

lethe wrote: "ehk2 wrote: "How easily you're threating people to kick? "

Paula is a super-librarian, not staff. She was not threatening you, but warning you. If you do too many edits against policy, you risk lo..."

Do we all agree that Zülfü Livaneli stays or not? That's the all issue. I am not the trouble maker here. I'm trying to preserve the status quo. Zülfü or O.Z.?
My rule-book says "Keep the author page on title page". If you altogether change the name, that will be wrong -especially to the Turkish editions.

According to the rules, Zülfü Livaneli should be the secondary author name on the books/editions that have that name on the cover. O.Z. Livaneli should be the primary author on all the books/editions.

I don't know what rule-book you are looking at, but the librarian manual is very clear:
"All editions should have the primary author name as the standard or most common Roman (that is, English-language) version of the author's name." (https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/4...)

lethe wrote: "According to the rules, Zülfü Livaneli should be the secondary author name on the books/editions that have that name on the cover. O.Z. Livaneli should be the primary author on all the books/editio..."

OK. In book pages, move the English name up -****whenever they appear****. Make Zülfü second. So, the overall 'Zülfü Livaneli" page will still be there. Do not touch "Zülfü Livaneli" author page, seperatedly. Thank you. I guess we all agreed. Everything clear. At least, for me now.

Nobody said anything about deleting Zülfü Livaneli. The question was whether to have one encompassing profile "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli", or whether to have two, namely "O.Z. Livaneli" and "Zülfü Livaneli".

ehk2 wrote: "In book pages, move the English name up -****whenever they appear****. Make Zülfü second. So, the overall 'Zülfü Livaneli" page will still be there. Do not touch "Zülfü Livaneli" author page, seperatedly. Thank you. I guess we all agreed."

No, the English name should be primary on *all* editions, not just *whenever they appear*. But it is certainly possible to have Zülfü Livaneli as a secondary author on all editions.

lethe wrote: "Nobody said anything about deleting Zülfü Livaneli. The question was whether to have one encompassing profile "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli", or whether to have two, namely "O.Z. Livaneli" and "Zülfü Livane..."

On the contrary, the original suggestion was exactly that. Now you are telling me that the issue was keeping two seperate author names is according to rules or not.

Excuse me, but I can show you literally tens or hundreds cases of different names which indeed belong to same author. How can you be so unaware of the existence of these cases. They are already a good part of Goodreads. Just look for many Arabic or Russian authors and their Latin pronunciations.

If I knew you have a very strict policy of not keeping such cases, not allowing these cases, I would not argue.

I know all about authors in different languages/alphabets, thank you.

I also know there are author names where it was decided to use the encompassing, full name instead of having different variants with initials, but as far as I'm aware they are always in the same language (recently William P. Young, Wm. Paul Young and W. Paul Young were all merged into William Paul Young).

So the majority is for adding "O.Z. Livaneli" as primary author and "Zülfü Livaneli" as secondary. I'm fine with that.

As a side note to his preference of not including the initial name, one Italian publisher has used it: http://www.hoepli.it/libro/felicita/9... But I guess if he'd want an all encompassing name he can become GR author and follow that up with support.

ehk2 wrote: "If I knew you have a very strict policy of not keeping such cases, not allowing these cases, I would not argue. "

There is a strict policy, but there are imports which may violate GR policy and librarians haven't yet encountered them and/or fixed them.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "There is a strict policy, but there are imports which may violate GR policy and librarians haven't yet encountered them and/or fixed them. "

This. There are billions of books on GR, and I read somewhere about 40k librarians, of which only a fraction are probably active. Having a policy, strict or not, doesn't fix the books by itself, that takes people and time.

Summary: "Zülfü Livaneli" has been changed to "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli". I reversed that. Then this librarian suggests changing it to "O.Z. Livaneli". Now, the issue has changed into another dispute.

Let's think another way: What is the most common Roman language name of Zülfü Livaneli? Certainly not O.Z. But you insist using the English title.

I say that Zülfü is the correct ROMAN title. We, Turks, use the Roman characters, like Spaniards or Germans -with a few additional characters like ş,ç,ü,ğ...

e.g. what about Vicente Blasco Ibáñez? Why don't you change it, delete the enye [ñ]? If you are insisting to apply rules strictly, do it for all. If you don't, leave it for the best practice, that is common sense, logic, etc.

We are not talking here about another system of alphabet. It's Latin.

Or, for best, improve your search engine algoritms!

ehk2 wrote: "Summary: "Zülfü Livaneli" has been changed to "Ömer Zülfü Livaneli". I reversed that. Then this librarian suggests changing it to "O.Z. Livaneli". Now, the issue has changed into another dispute.

..."

All the English editions of Günter Grass books are to "Günter Grass". And also, he is not referred as "Günter Wilhelm Grass". Perfect example. Perfect comparison!

ehk2, we are librarians just like you. We can't improve the search engines, we fight against them just like you.

The rules say, if the books have been translated to multiple languages under different names, then the name on the English book title goes first on all editions of all books. The name on the English book we were shown is O.Z. Livaneli. And all the way back in message #2 I said, get a staff decision on this, for the exact reason you mention, Turkish *is* a Latin alphabet, but the guidelines mix "English" and "Roman" (which is not Latin) in a confusing way, and it's really unclear what to do here. Sometimes we've been told to use the English name, even when the alternative is latin, and sometimes we've been told not to. But either way, if staff says "do this" in a particular case, they have the last say.

We librarians don't make the rules. We don't even always like them. But the TOS says we have to abide by them - and so do you.

ehk2 wrote: "All the English editions of Günter Grass books are to "Günter Grass". And also, he is not referred as "Günter Wilhelm Grass". Perfect example. Perfect comparison! ."

Completely different situation. The rules are about how they are published not what author's names actually are.

Günter Grass is published in English as Günter Grass, with that name on the cover more often than not. He is not published with his middle name on the cover, so that's not what the books are filed under. (Anymore than Livaneli publishes as Ömer Zülfü Livanelli.)

The person you need to be angry at about this is either Livanelli himself or his publisher, whichever of them decided not to just put "Zülfü Livanelli" on his English translation, thereby avoiding this entire issue.

Completely differ..."

Thanks. That is informative.
Of course, I'm angry with writers like Z. Livaneli, Elif Sh(Ş)afak, etc. who change their own name to capitalize in English language book markets.

Here's how I see it, ehk2 and Ayshe, after really thinking about it - it still needs a staff decision on the issue:

If Turkish is considered a latin language by GR (I consider it one, as do you ehk2), then the normal pen name rules apply: Zülfü Livaneli as first author on all books, O.Z. Livanelli as secondary on the editions with that on the cover. (This would probably keep the most people happy).

If Turkish is not considered a latin language by GR, then it has to go the other way around, according to the librarian rules, because it's the translation rules that apply.

Krazykiwi wrote: "If Turkish is considered a latin language by GR (I consider it one, as do you ehk2), then the normal pen name rules apply: Zülfü Livaneli as first author on all books, O.Z. Livanelli as secondary on the editions with that on the cover."

That doesn't apply, I think. His case is comparable to György Konrád's, whose primary name on Goodreads is George Konrád, because that is how he is published in English.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...

lethe wrote: "Krazykiwi wrote: "If Turkish is considered a latin language by GR (I consider it one, as do you ehk2), then the normal pen name rules apply: Zülfü Livaneli as first author on all books, O.Z. Livane..."

Gah. That's just dumb. Treating it as a penname makes more sense when the original name is latin script too, it's no different than Ruth Rendell being Barbara Vine in Germany.

Ayshe wrote: "So the majority is for adding "O.Z. Livaneli" as primary author and "Zülfü Livaneli" as secondary. I'm fine with that."

Works for me.

An AKA feature for authors names that handles not only (or not necessarily) pseudonyms but al so different spellings and transliterations would be a dream come true. If GR developers could look at how LibraryThing author pages manage this problem, they could find some ideas

Just chipping in because I was named (bit like a demon summoning perhaps?)

- Diacritics are optional, but mostly only if a Goodreads Author chooses not to use them, then that wins.
e.g. If György Konrád had claimed Gyorgy Konrad, then we'd use the non-diacritic version.

- English version of the name goes first. Where there are multiple English versions, we generally lean towards the LCAuth version (see discussion on Cavafy)

- We do not make up versions of the name - if the books were never published with the name in that form then it shouldn't be used. The only exception to this is disambiguating names where unused middle initials can be used to separate two or more authors of the same published name.
e.g. Joe Bloggs and Joe T. Bloggs

- Books should have: Default name THEN Name-as-on-Cover, if the latter is different. The only time when name-on-cover may be combined with Default name is if the Default name encompasses ALL of the name on cover.
e.g. Cover:A.P. Chekhov, Default:Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.

- If a different alphabet is used, then that version should be second. This link agrees that if there is not an English translation, then the first Latin alphabet translation should be used. This is ONLY when no books by that author are translated into English.

Wait a minute, I hope "diacritics are optional" ONLY for Goodreads Authors (I don't understand why one would choose to have their name spelled wrong, but whatever)

I wouldn't want, say, this https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Italian author changed from "Pedullà" to "Pedulla" which is totally wrong and, well, not his name

Bolded the bit to clarify :) But officially it seems to be seen as optional but suboptimal. The only time when I would not fix it to include the diacritics, however, is when it's a claimed profile as we prefer author's usage over "correct" usage.

Secondly, they are also seen as optional because of virtually identical spellings in English sometimes removes the diacritics because we're obviously incapable of reading diacritics (we = English). Yes, that's me being sarcastic :) Diacritics are optional in this case to stop a) edit wars over diacritics added and removed, and b) everyone having to use workarounds to add the second author with/without diacritics onto the record, which would be a nightmare.

Also, more in my first post - I was editing it as you wrote :)

There are two problems here that confuse the heck out of things:

1. ö and ü are not an o and u with diacritics in Turkish, they are distinct letters. ö is an o with a diacritic in English. GR can call them diacritics all they like, but that doesn't make it so. What it does is make the rules really fuzzy if you speak a language that happens to include actual letters that English doesn't.

2. Turkish is a latin alphabet. It just happens to have three letters English doesn't. So does Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish, but we don't replace those in names like Wahlöö or Selmerlöw (even when some, particularly the crappy PD publishers just replace them totally incorrectly with an o)

The ambiguity is, the rules say to use the most common English or Roman name. if you are working on books in Swedish, or in this case, Turkish, that is most logically going to be the original author name. If the guidelines mean English (and it seems they do) then they should just say English or go right out and specify to use the LOC name.

1. Yes, agreed, and yes, pain in the posterior.
However, because of the way the database works, if an author is entered as Pedullà (to use Moloch's example), and Pedulla already exists, it'll get corrected to the first used form. I agree, however, that this is technically incorrect.

2. Also agreed, and as above. As I said, my personal rule is if unclaimed, add diacritics/correct letter forms. This then hopefully fixes the first problem by correcting Pedulla to Pedullà. The less said about forms used by "crappy PD publishers" the better.... ;)

Also Jo Nesbø. ARGH

I have long notes I add to the records for alternate forms of an author's names, and then I always specify English not Latinate for that reason (that and I'm pedantic - a "Latin" form would need to specify nominative and all that, and just NO). I do believe that a few years back there was a discussion of "priority" for language forms, but I have no idea what we decided since it was a loooooong time ago... I have rules-of-thumb, but I'm very aware that they are up for contrary policy decisions along the line.

REQUEST: Can all of this please be summarised and added to the Librarian Manual?

It’s becoming very confusing and just doesn’t work as bits and pieces hidden away in messages.

➜ If the Librarian Manual already contains this information, an explicit confirmation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Codex wrote: "REQUEST: Can all of this please be summarised and added to the Librarian Manual?"

Do you want to draft up something and put it in the relevant folder. If you link it back to this thread we can discuss the phrasing (I'd do it myself but I'm making major systems changes to the OPAC at work and am thus brain fried!).

Emy wrote: "Codex wrote: "REQUEST: Can all of this please be summarised and added to the Librarian Manual?"

Do you want to draft up something and put it in the relevant folder. If you link it back to this thr..."

No thanks. It would be best if the definition of rules originate from Goodreads staff—who ultimately determine policy and have the final say.

This is not merely summarising what everyone else has said: there are multiple opinions, some differing, all of which requires proper analysis in order to establish a final policy that caters for all scenarios.

As long as this is not clearly delineated in the Librarian Manual, confusion and misdirected action will continue.

Codex wrote: "REQUEST: Can all of this please be summarised and added to the Librarian Manual?

It’s becoming very confusing and just doesn’t work as bits and pieces hidden away in messages.

➜ If the Librarian ..."

Seconded! I must admit that the wording of the current rule is prone to misinterpretation:

All editions should have the primary author name as the standard or most common Roman (that is, English-language) version of the author's name. Editions published under another spelling of the name or the name in another language should have that name listed as the secondary author.

That first sentence is particularly hard to parse. This doesn't actually say that the name used in English-language publishing (if it exists) needs to be primary. It's been interpreted that way, but it doesn't actually say that unambiguously. "Have the primary author name as standard" starts from the stance that you already know what the primary name is. "Choose the standard or most common English version as the primary" is more clear.

Better would be something explicit like this: "The most common name used in English-language publications for the author should be used as the primary author name. Use this primary name on all versions, whether or not those versions are in English. Editions published under another spelling of the name or the name in a language other than English should also have that version of the name listed as a secondary author." Then give an actual example or two to demonstrate. (Then explain what to do if the author 1) has never been translated to any other language, and 2) has been translated to language(s) other than English.)

I know now from reading in this group that English is meant to be primary, but for at least 2 years as a librarian - and one who carefully read the rules, I assure you - I didn't realize that English was meant to be primary because of the byzantine wording. I've edited many a Japanese book to put the Japanese author name first because of this misunderstanding.