I am a librarian who spends a lot of time combining and separating books by dead authors (e.g., A. Conan Doyle, Alexandre Dumas). One of the recurring issues I encounter involves whether to treat a given book as:
(1) an abridgement, (which, per GR policy, should be combined with the work it's abridging); or (2) an adaptation (which, per GR policy, should NOT be combined with the work it's translating).
Often, books are self-described as abridgements or adaptations, e.g., on the cover or title page - which makes classification easy. In other cases, books are not clearly labeled as abridgements or adaptations and the title page or other contents of the book may not be readily accessible without purchasing the book. And if the original author is dead, they are not available to help answer this question.
In these cases, my rule of thumb is that, if a book has the same title as the original work, but appears to be a lot shorter, I'll treat it as an abridgement (which should be combined with the original work) unless there is clear evidence that it's an adaptation.
However, in the case of "readers" - editions of famous books by dead authors that are modified in some manner to help readers learn a foreign language - I'll treat them as adaptations (which should NOT be combined with the original work) - absent clear evidence that they are mere abridgements.
Does this approach comport with GR policy, or otherwise seem to you to be appropriate?
(1) an abridgement, (which, per GR policy, should be combined with the work it's abridging); or
(2) an adaptation (which, per GR policy, should NOT be combined with the work it's translating).
See https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/....
Often, books are self-described as abridgements or adaptations, e.g., on the cover or title page - which makes classification easy. In other cases, books are not clearly labeled as abridgements or adaptations and the title page or other contents of the book may not be readily accessible without purchasing the book. And if the original author is dead, they are not available to help answer this question.
In these cases, my rule of thumb is that, if a book has the same title as the original work, but appears to be a lot shorter, I'll treat it as an abridgement (which should be combined with the original work) unless there is clear evidence that it's an adaptation.
However, in the case of "readers" - editions of famous books by dead authors that are modified in some manner to help readers learn a foreign language - I'll treat them as adaptations (which should NOT be combined with the original work) - absent clear evidence that they are mere abridgements.
Does this approach comport with GR policy, or otherwise seem to you to be appropriate?
Bob