Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Mod
I think this is one time when combining the various translations/editions would NOT be a good idea.
As for the author, that's a theological question. ;) "Various" does seem to be a popular choice on GR though.
Somebody needs to tackle the Bible.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...
as an example has an author instead of various. I was working with R.C. Sproul and all of a sudden, "Holy Bible" appeared if I use the term bible in the search field on the combine page. The book is not listed if I do not use the filter. Do you have any idea what is going on???
Mod
1500+ editions? It really is a category all to itself.
Mod
So I should assume that if I can identify it, I should seperate it and then keep him as primary, or should I put various as primary and him as secondary - similar to an editor?
1500 hundred editions that have been combined into this version alone, plus hundered of uncombined versions and other combined versions with just a few dozen per version!I'm sticking with easier authors and titles. Don't even know where to begin with this one!
Mod
rivka wrote: "One (or more) of the 1500+ editions must have him listed as primary author."But I thought you could only combine when the primary authors were the same? Was the author changed after the combining?
mlady_rebecca wrote: "1500+ editions? It really is a category all to itself."This will have to be a category someone else has to fix. :)
Right. I just had a look at the anonymous page, and it struck me as somewhat odd that the editions were pretty much divided by translation team/religious denomination. While I'm sure that's very handy for people who aren't sure at all which edition they have (who cannot search by ISBN), I'm not really sure what it adds otherwise. Books with 300+ editions are pretty much impossible to search through manually for your version, so why divide them? The practice seems arbitrary to say the least..Sure, the deuterocanonical and NT-apocryphal books probably won't be present in Protestant translations, and other things might apply to orthodox works, but I don't really see any other reason to separate different translations, so why are they separated so neatly? Intra-faith rivalry? ;) Protestant pride? (Sorry, just being cheeky.)
In any case, I was wondering what to do with all these different versions, so if anyone would be willing to tell me the current policy on bible translation combination, that'd be wonderful.
Mod
Not true. They can be sorted by publication year, popularity, and other sorts.
I vote for leaving them as is. I don't see the benefit of combining them further.
(Also, I've been wondering this for a while. How can a boson have no spin? Then it's not a boson!)
('tis a mystery. It's postulated to exist, anyway. (Laws of) Nature act(s) in wonder-inducing ways, I suppose. ;))
zerospinboson wrote: "Right. I just had a look at the anonymous page, and it struck me as somewhat odd that the editions were pretty much divided by translation team/religious denomination. While I'm sure that's very ha..."I think more information should be in the guides about how these should be combined. I generally agree with the decision that was reached before I joined the librarian group, that for the most part translations of books should be combined with each other. In the case of the Bible I believe it should have special treatment in this regard. Not because it should be considered "special" but just for the fact of the volume of translations and the volume of editions in each translation. What makes the most sense to me is that Bibles be combined only with the general translation i.e. KJV with KJV, NKJV with NKJV NIV with NIV, etc. It is the most useful to people who actually want to shelve and read and talk about multiple versions of the Bible. Obviously people can note all the information about the particular edition of that version in the reviews. many people believe it is the same book and they want to just lump them all together but obviously many people do not agree or else there would not be so many translations. If there was a way to have "levels" of combinations like Bibles with a sub category of "translations" it would serve the purpose. For other types of books there could be sub-categories for children's versions or other authors abridgments and so forth. But for now I think the general translations should be grouped together.
Mikey wrote: "If there was a way to have "levels" of combinations like Bibles with a sub category of "translations" it would serve the purpose. For other types of books there could be sub-categories for children's versions or other authors abridgments and so forth."That kind of general structural suggestion would need to be brought up in the Feedback group. Although, I imagine it would be too big of a change given that it only affects a small portion of the overall database.
mlady_rebecca wrote: That kind of general structural suggestion would need to be brought up in the Feedback group. Although, I imagine it would be too big of a change given that it only affects a small portion of the overall database. Actually, I wasn't really intending to make a suggestion about a database change however I did read something elsewhere along the lines of what I mentioned and so it was actually a general comment about what is already being discussed elsewhere. I know I didn't make that clear.
Someone has done a good job to begin to "combine" the Bible separated by Translations but obviously it is still far from perfect. My main point was in response to
The practice seems arbitrary to say the least.
I personally don't want to see every version and translation of the "Bible" combined together. It appears former librarians were trying to combine any and every "Bible" translation with any other. My point is with the current Goodreads system it does make sense to "combine" them according to general translation version. The bottom section of the edits page applies to all books in that "grouping". Each edition of a particular translation would have a Common "Original Title" and "Original Publication date".
I tried to continue in the way it currently appears and continue to group "general translation versions" together. Obviously, there are still plenty that are "wrongly" combined according to this method or just not yet found and "combined" but I still feel this is the right way to do it. I started adding librarians notes on the top book of the particular "grouping" mainly so I could easily differentiate between the ones I've looked at from other "groupings" that still probably should be divided out accordingly.
I have a few questions so far that I would like answered:
1. Should we remove "Various" when we come across it or should we just add Anonymous as the first author?
apparently before I joined, there was a discussion and poll and so forth on the first Author field for "Sacred texts". According to the forum and the subsequent "librarian manual" "Anonymous" was decided on however as stated above "Various" is also commonly used.
2. How should we deal with other then English Translations?
If it is say, the king James Version translated into French or Spanish, it should probably go with the King James *(or whatever) If it has the generally known and widely used version name or abbreviations for the translation version included in the title or description, that is what I've done. There are a lot that I don't really know where they belong so I left them alone.
3. Should the LDS version of the King James be listed with the larger King James/Authorized version?
this is not a theological/religious question and I don't really care either way but I noticed that some have LDS version in the bottom "original title" field and a publication date in the 1920s (which is not correct). If we are talking about the The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST), also called the Inspired Version of the Bible (I.V.), it was actually originally published and copyrighted in 1867. However, the Authorized King James Version (LDS edition) was originally published in 1979. I assume it should likely be combined with the rest of the Authorized/King James Versions, but I didn't know how the "original title" and "publication date" would be affected. If I am not mistaken the "LDS version" has been "added" way more times then any other "edition" of the 600 plus other editions. But if it is combined with the rest of "Authorized/King James" the information in the bottom fields needs to accurately reflect the whole of the larger category.
4. Should I combine ones that were previously grouped together under say the name of the editor of that particular edition with the actual translation version that was used? Here is an example of what I mean: MacArthur Study Bible. All the editions in this grouping are of the NKJV. I think the answer is or should be a yes. Since I have not seen any official policy on how the "Bible" should be dealt with I left it separate for now. MacArthur also did other translations such as the NASB so I would be careful to put it under the correct translation version but otherwise it does seem pointless not to add them to the corresponding translation version. Some of his editions are already combined with the translation versions and I would certainly never bother to "separate" them (without official specifications). So for consistency I think they should all be combined according to translation version and not by editor or any other "classification".
This isn't really a definitive answer on combining, other than the general rule of thumb that's "combine things containing the same text in any language". There's a "combine across minor adaptions" rule as well, but it hasn't to my knowledge been discussed in the context of sacred texts, so what constitutes a "minor" adaption hasn't been settled.Here's the discussion of authorship of sacred texts where "Anonymous" was decided on. ("Various" should be removed as a secondary author. In general, "Various" or any variation thereof is not a preferred authorship.) The question of combining wasn't really touched on there, so it should probably be raised now.
I suppose the question for combining sacred texts should really be: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books? Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?
Vickie wrote: "I forgot to mention, I have been putting all the descriptive things such as leather type, color, blah blah blah under "edition" and taking it out of the Title Bar as I don't think "duct tape camoflague color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example)."Oh my! Yes, I think the camo duct tape is probably not a biblical subtitle. :)
Cait wrote: "I suppose the question for combining sacred texts should really be: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books? Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?"I would say that the various versions or translations for the Bible should be kept separate, just because of the sheer volume. There are currently over 600 editions of the King James Version and over 800 editions of the New International Version. I had to try to find an edition (w/o ISBN) just in the KJV, and was overwhelemed by the 600 editions. Having thousands under one edition would be impossible.
Mod
Cait wrote: "Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?" I appreciate all the responses and the effort of others to make it nicer for all. I obviously can't speak for everyone but as far as the reviews go as I said in my first post
What makes the most sense to me is that Bibles be combined only with the general translation... It is the most useful to people who actually want to shelve and read and talk about multiple versions of the Bible.
and so far everyone weighing in on this seem to be in agreement. There are two features currently on the review page of any particular book all editions and this edition only I may want to read about what others are saying about a particular edition or I may want to read what people are saying about a particular translation. Either way works well if they are separated/combined this way. Obviously there will be plenty of comments about the "bible" in general under any grouping and especially under the most popular grouping in the all editions field Yet it seems people would still be the most accustomed to finding them in this way. If one goes to any bible retailer, online or otherwise they would be separated or shelved or linked first and foremost under the "general translation version". Then of course they all have individual "grabbers" or "selling points" or whatever which for goodreads would be contained in people's actual opinions in the "review box".
Cait wrote: "Here's the discussion of authorship of sacred texts where "Anonymous" was decided on. ("Various" should be removed as a secondary author. ..."Thanks for the clarification I will begin to remove "various" and replace with "Anonymous" I did read that before I began with the "Gita" the other night and continued with the "Bible" yesterday. I was just double checking that "various" should be deleted
Vickie wrote: For me personally "Bible" made more sense because there are people who argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. are "authors" but it's not important really.
I didn't get a chance to weigh in on this and obviously I am fine with whatever as long as it is consistent. So I am just glad at least this is definitive.
Just to throw more on the fire, to properly combine different translations, you'd have to compare versions to see if they used the same source texts, and same critical apparatus to make the translation, otherwise they aren't really different versions of the same text translated...Though I doubt that most users are looking for that level of comparison, it would be the 'right' way to combine versions and translations.
Phil wrote: "Just to throw more on the fire, to properly combine different translations, you'd have to compare versions to see if they used the same source texts, and same critical apparatus to make the transla..."That is the main difference between the translation versions. Each new or different attempt to translate would of been a specific task that was undergone at a specific time and published on the same specific date. The method and source texts, and purpose of the task would be common to the translation version.
Abigail wrote: "...My copy of the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, for instance, is the New Revised Standard translation. However, given the amount of additional critical material in the Oxford editions, I think it should only be combined with other Oxford Annotated bibles."
I understand that but also the "critical material", study helps, and all additional material is what makes an "edition" an "edition". If we separate sometimes by "critical material" in addition to the "Bible" translation it is too subjective to determine which translations belong together. However, if we only combine translations one can easy read reviews of the exact "edition" they are reading or they can easily view all reviews of the particular translation. Although in order to read what everyone is saying about your particular translation and edition, you may have to scan through the other editions page" to find other ISBN listings of the same "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" according to your example, it is pretty quick and easy with the thumbnail pictures and everything on that page. You could also just perform a search New Oxford Annotated Bible I still believe this is the best solution to begin to have a common standard by which to go by. If you object how do you think we should decide which "editions" of a translation should be combined and which ones should be kept separate?
Regards,
Question number four was regarding this issue. If I found a listing that was grouped another way such as by the editor in the case of MacArthur Study Bible, I left them alone for now and am here to find out what the policy should be. I didn't mean to combine your version with the rest of the New Revised Standard Version on Saturday (assuming it was my fault) and had I noticed it was apparently purposely divided separately I would have waited to find the established policy. I found similar New Oxford editions, combined with totally unrelated translation versions and some already combined with the larger NRSV and according to the search I just did some are still not combined with anything. I found the same thing with the MacArthur Study Bible. I know you are correct in that there is also the same discussion on going with regard to how books should be combined. As far as how much new or different information should constitute a totally different book. One that comes immediately to mind and seems relevant to your example has to do with editions of text books that may differ drastically one to the other. According to the basic guidelines
do combine:
•Different publications of the same book.
•Different formats of the book (hardcover, paperback, audio).
•Editions/translations of the book in other languages. Even though many translations differ significantly, we've made the decision to combine them all, and have people note the differences in their reviews.
don't combine:
•2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book.
•Cliff notes or other works about the given book.
I believe and I assume many others would agree, this basic guideline doesn't work well for the "Bible" as far as combining all translations, if nothing else then because of the volume of translations and editions of each translation. The initial post I was responding to here, gave the impression that the practice of neatly separating them by translation version was laughable or "arbitrary". And of course I am not arguing that it is not somewhat "arbitrary" to not treat all "Bibles" simply as "the Bible" but I am arguing that there is plenty of sound logic to at least divide them by the commonly known "translation version" and then "noting the differences in the reviews" as regard to the specific edition or publication of any particular "translation".
Abigail wrote: ...My review, when and if I write it, will not be of the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, but of the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
I think that is the right idea. When and if you write it you should give all the information and opinion and details you find pertinent or interesting about the exact edition you are using. I read the reviews of the exact edition you have shelved NEW Oxford Annotated Bible. As would be expected some comment on "the bible" as a whole, some comment on the "translation", some comment on the "translation in relation to the "extra material" and some comment on the particularities of this "edition". I also read some of the reviews of the larger (NRSV) category and many of the top reviews were still from reviews of "New Oxford Annotated Bible". But anyway it is still open for discussion....
Regards,
I just want to chime in and say I think that this is a great discussion -- thanks for leading it off, Mikey! I don't feel qualified to offer any advice on the actual issue, but it sounds like those of you who are, are working toward some good guidelines.
Mod
Agreed. :)
I am trying to do well at helping "clean up" the listings. I am not adamantly opposed to separating them out further by other criteria either and can actually see some potential benefit for people. This will ultimately go back to what Cait said: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books?
It is a good idea for anyone interested, to post a discussion (or link) on the "Discuss this book" of any Bible they are using.
I have typically found most publications of any particular "translation version" to present itself primarily as a "new" or "different" publication of the Bible in an unambiguous (easily identifiable*) translation, regardless of how much or little "extra material" is included. Therefore, as a general rule it would be desired to have many if not most unique "translation version" combined. *(specifically regarding Translations into English)
Abigail's example may be a very notable exception to this generality. (one of several perhaps)
Synopsis-New Oxford Annotated Bible:"Now a new editorial board and team of contributors have completely updated this classic work. The result is a volume which maintains and extends the excellence the Annotated's users have come to expect, bringing new insights, information, and approaches to bear upon the understanding of the text of the Bible.
Search Results: New Oxford Annotated Bible brings up I think twelve results now. Some are apparently the exact same book but listed with editors, contributors, or what not, in the main Author field. I know author information needs to be corrected and/or standardized, and combined with the others in some way. We would find it to be good policy and consistent with basic guidelines to combine All New Oxford Annotated Bible (e.g. First, second, third) editions together as republications of the New Oxford Annotated Bible rather then other publications of the New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible correct?
I am definitely not qualified nor am I willing to divide the Bible up much further then by the criteria of "translation version" (at least not to start). However, if there are other well established "titles" that are being clumped together I will easily and most certainly comply. I have agreed with the basic strategy I've noticed so far:
when I separate/combine the Bible I watch for:
*Bible by translations (e.g. Abbreviations for Bible Versions, Version List, Index of 100+ English Versions of the Bible )-- ("Complete Publication of any given version")
with or without Apocrypha/deuterocanonical open for discussion
*Translations "partial" (e.g. "New Testament" only, "Old Testament" only, psalms and proverbs, Apocryphal only). Combine with editions that contain the same "collection of books" in any given "translation version"
*Parallel Bibles (two or more translation versions Combined in one book) Based on the following rule in the Librarian Manual—rules for combining book editions: don't combine:
•2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book.
Therefore, I would only combine with others that contain the same "books" or in this case "translation Versions".
*separate works about the Bible", or with Bible in the title (basic guidelines apply) don't combine:
•Cliff notes or other works about the given book.
*special specific titles being combined/separated out
What else? Suggestions, guidelines?........... (btw sorry if my posts are, so far, always too long)
Regards,
I have little to add to the discussion, but want to say that I have found it somewhat fascinating and reasonably impressive how quickly a general and quite reasonable consensus was formed in how to handle this case (unlike, say, when the authorship issue was discussed a number of months ago...that definitely meandered around quite a bit more).
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I have little to add to the discussion, but want to say that I have found it somewhat fascinating and reasonably impressive how quickly a general and quite reasonable consensus was formed in how to handle this case (unlike, say, when the authorship issue was discussed a number of months ago...that definitely meandered around quite a bit more)."I think that's because only people who regularly read the bible, rather than just own a bible, are speaking up. I never even thought about shelving my bible. I use Goodreads primarily for documenting fiction.
Mod
BTW, as soon as y'all are done, if someone can write up something for the manual, I'll go ahead and add it.
Vickie wrote: "I forgot to mention, I have been putting all the descriptive things such as leather type, color, blah blah blah under "edition" and taking it out of the Title Bar as I don't think "duct tape camouflage color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example)."Basic Guidelines should apply as to the Title field of any Bible. Additional information should be in the "edition Field". (& not every Bible Edition is called "Holy Bible")
Basic Guidelines: using the book edit page
title
Enter in the official title of the book as it is shown on the cover or binding. Use proper capitalization and punctuation (i.e. do not use all-caps or no-caps unless the author specifically formatted the title that way). Make sure to check your spelling since improperly spelled titles may make the book harder to find in the Goodreads database.
Mod
Vickie wrote: "Mikey: ]"...as I don't think "duct tape camouflage color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example)."
"
Hey guess what? I think I just found your example. The Official Duct Tape Bible
You were partly correct on this one. This particular one is actually Titled: The Official Duct Tape Bible New Century Version. Here it is on the publishers web site Thomas Nelson—The Duct Tape Bible, NCV
Maybe that wasn't the best example after all, but your overall point was completely right on. Anyway for what it's worth.
It is funny....I appreciate your comments. Yeah I kind of stumbled into this project. I guess I'm just continuing, for awhile, where you left off. You did a great job to start it off btw. I'm now becoming really familiar with these. I never really expected it.
"indefinitely numerous" was vague by definition. In order to clarify it, I need more feed back on what this exception should apply to. Apparently it is not a big issue because nobody is really speaking up. I intentionally made it a negative-what not to do (i.e. "should not be combined") rather then a positive-what to do, because I am still wondering if "general policy" should be used when combining many of these titles. By this I mean only combining them with other ISBN editions of the same book. By same book meaning not the "Bible" in general but the specific publication of the Bible, such as is done here: The MacArthur Study Bible (although I believe one The MacArthur Student Bible is actually a separate book.) However, there are many more editions of The MacArthur Study Bible - New King James Version combined with the larger grouping of "New King James Bibles". So I am wondering if it makes more sense to separate the rest of “The MacArthur Study Bible - New King James Version" and combine them with these or to combine these with the rest of the New King James Bibles. Either way they should definitely be together rather then separated from each other. To complicate it further there are also, different publications of some of these titles that use a different translation of the Bible. Using the previous example, The MacArthur Study Bible - New American Standard Bible.
For most titles and editions I think combining them with the "translation version" would suffice however there may be certain titles that should be separated/combined only with the same book as is done with any other book. In these cases I wonder if it would have made more sense to combine them under the General Editor as is basic policy for text books and other such books. I know the Anonymous page says editors should be in secondary fields and once they are properly combined it doesn't really matter one way or the other I suppose.
When speaking about the Bible, I think the easiest way to go about getting them properly combined is to initially get the Main Author field consistent and combine them only within the given translation (and of course following the rest of the general policy I put forth previously regarding "partial versions" or "parallel versions") The title I felt the need to reiterate because I notice this basic policy regarding title has not been followed in the past when it comes to the Bible. I would hope in the future it will be. I know the title field on many of them comes to the goodreads database already messed up because of the way the data is pulled from other sites; however I also noticed many of them were intentionally renamed incorrectly. I also realize on some it is difficult to follow "basic Policy" because the picture included is often the box rather then the actual cover or spine. My main concern here is although a significant amount of them are very generic, including only Holy Bible and perhaps the translation version on the cover or spine many others are very specific and do not include the phrase "Holy Bible". The ones that are very specific also generally have many different ISBN number editions. I want to be able to go to any given translation version click sort by title and easily see all the ones that are the same title listed together. I have begun to edit the titles to make this happen. It is somewhat unfortunate that "Holy Bible" isn't automatically treated like "the" when using "sort by title".
So the only real exception is regarding "combining all translations together" in the general rules for combining book editions:
do combine:
•Different publications of the same book.
•Different formats of the book (hardcover, paperback, audio).
•Editions/translations of the book in other languages. Even though many translations differ significantly, we've made the decision to combine them all, and have people note the differences in their reviews.
Only a very small number of users responded but all have agreed that it is a bad idea when it comes to the Bible. I gave several reason previously why "unrelated or distinct translation versions" should not be combined when it comes to the Bible. One of the reasons that seemed ostensibly the easiest to justify was regarding the ridiculous number of "editions" of what is called the Bible, that would be treated on Goodreads as one book should they all be combined together according to the policy that "all translations" should be combined.
I don't know if this rule should apply to other sacred texts. For instance, before I started on the Bible I was trying to get all the editions of the Bhagavad-Gita As it is, translation by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, into one place. I found them combined under various, combined under the translator as Author, and combined under Anonymous. Since "Anonymous" was made definitive I started to combine them all there. The ones that were under Anonymous also had other translation versions combined along with the "As it is" translation. However a search for Bhagavad-Gita in addition to pulling up other books about the Bhagavad-Gita (which of course should always be separate, it also finds many translation versions by themselves or combined under the name of the translator. Most "translation versions" contain additional commentary and what not by the translator so I wonder if they should remain separate because even though they contain the "sacred text" they are actually different books. The same thing would apply to many Bibles. Unless it is completely generic it would have much additional material by contributors and editors to make different books. Therefore "sacred texts" should either be combined essentially by official title, or basic content (in other words, like all other books) or else we make certain exceptions for them. I can see advantages to having them all combined because it would be somewhat handy to read what others are saying about all the various publications of a "sacred text" in one place. However I also realize that just because they contain the "sacred text" it doesn't make them the "same book" necessarily. For most "sacred texts" I would think if we were strict on "same book" it would usually mean they would be combined essentially by translation version. The Bible is constantly reissued with completely different material from different sets of contributors. This would be more akin to a "•2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book. *(the difference between a "Bible" and a so called "study bible") Often times the emphasis is simply different based on the target audience. However, the one constant that automatically differentiates publications of the Bible is the "Basic Translation Version". The question for now is whether this applies to "sacred texts" in general or whether it only applies to the Bible.
Depending on what this possible exception should apply to, it could be summarized or clarified something to the effect as:
•When Combining Sacred texts "Translation Versions" should be regarded as separate books. Unrelated or distinct translation versions should not be combined.
or
•When Combining editions of The Bible "Translation Versions" should be regarded as separate books. Unrelated or distinct "translation versions" should not be combined.
If it varies, meaning sometimes we combine them all, and sometimes we separate by translation or other criteria then we need to more fully define the reason for the variation in "policy" in order to establish some consistency. If for example we combine all versions and translations of a book except when there are "too many" we would either have to clearly specify a number to define "too many" (which I couldn't do) or else leave it "indefinite" and handle each question that comes up on a case by case bases. In addition much of this problem of having "too many" books combined together when they shouldn't be, would likely be avoided if what is meant by "same book" was more percisely defined. Most cases it is clear but sometimes there is confussion on this or what exactly constitutes "2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book". Is a "sacred text" with "commentary" a "two in one book"?
Anyway, I think eventually the rules for combining book editions section will need to be a bit further expanded or clarified to address certain issues it doesn't currently, besides the ones that have to do with the Bible or "sacred texts" in general.
I am being a lot more careful now that I understand better what happens with the default descriptions when these titles are combined. Is there a thread where this is discussed? Anyway now I am making sure the description is not on default before I combine in order to retain the specific description and not misapply specific descriptions to unrelated titles. Sometime I just click edit and add or delete some Html such as a paragraph tag at the beginning to make it not on default. I think a generic "translation" summary is better then a wrong "specific edition" summary therefore, when I am done going through a translation grouping, I am resetting the default description to be a "Translation version" specific summary. This way hopefully the only ones that will get changed are the few generic ones that currently have a completely wrong "specific edition" description anyway.
Mod
Not sure. Perhaps there should be!
I was looking at Sisyphus's list (spelling?) and saw under "various" that there was a Bible listed with authors "anonymous" and "various". I thought about changing the author to just "anonymous" but wanted to make sure that was correct policy before I did anything.
I have some thoughts, is this discussion still going... ?
It has been inactive for months. But I'll "listen"
Margaret wrote: "I have some thoughts, is this discussion still going... ?"I don't think any sort of consensus was reached.
Mod
Not as far as I know. Go for it, Margaret. :)
I just added my copy of the Bible as well. Here's a link: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...The only thing I've done so far is add the cover image. I guess I should change the Title to "Holy Bible" and put the current title (Revised Standard Version Gift and Award Imitation Burgundy Leather ) as edition? And get the publisher out of the author field and change it to Various (from reading above, that seems to be the consensus for author, yes?)
[And as a note, it appears there are a lot of books with "Broadman & Holman Publishers" listed as the author, mostly other Bible versions or Bible companions.]
This one says primary language "German" though my copy is in English, I suppose the RSV could have been published in German first...
Thoughts? I have to step away from my computer for a while, but I'll check in later tonight!
Anonymous was made definitive for the Author field. From the Librarian Manual –Sacred texts
Sacred texts with unknown or ambiguous authors are to be listed with the author "Anonymous". Please list any editor(s) or translator(s) in secondary slots. Publishers should not be listed as authors.
As far as the title follow the rule as any other book:
Enter in the official title of the book as it is shown on the cover or binding.
"Revised Standard Version Gift and Award Imitation Burgundy Leather" is fine in the edition field as it is not likely part of the official title but does help identify your particular edition.
The purpose of this discussion was to work out how to best organize the Bible on Goodreads. For the most part it didn't seem to be a priority, however as you noted it is a huge mess organizationally speaking. There are literally thousands of editions of what is typically called "The Bible". Every time they are newly imported automatically from other data sources they hit the Goodreads database in that format and have to be manually "fixed". That is why one will find many editions still under various publishers or even under "various", as people were putting them mostly before "Anonymous" was made definitive.
The general rule on Goodreads is to combine all editions of a book, and translations into other languages together to facilitate discussion and comparison etc. However, this didn't seem like good policy, when it came to the Bible, to the majority of those that weighed in on this issue. Therefore, to begin to organize them we combined them by Translation version and following other basic rules such as:
do combine:
•Different publications of the same book.
•Different formats of the book (hardcover, paperback, audio).
don't combine:
•2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book.
•Cliff notes or other works about the given book.
I determined that at times it might be appropriate and desired to separate them further by stricter criteria but based on the lack of feed back typically by translation version seemed sufficient enough. Chances are no one else will add or rate the particular version you have added so to make it more useful it should be combined I assume with the larger group of RSV Bibles –
