Use this thread to keep a running list of duplicate credits — until we can delete or mark entities invalid, it might help to have all known dupes collected in one place. (Hopefully there's not already a thread for this... if so, just let this dupe sink to the bottom and disappear...)

There are quite a few Penguin-related entities in the DB but I think these two are the same thing:
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/19489-Penguin-Group
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/21283-The-Penguin-Group

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/36939-Hunter-S-Thompson
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/33233-Hunter-S-Thompson

I fixed the error but it's still good to catalog these as we find them so that they can one day be marked as invalid or removed or something.

Not really a duplicate but impossible to fix due to autocomplete:
Correct is http://www.biblio.gs/credit/21836-Rembrandt-van-Rijn
wrong is http://www.biblio.gs/credit/24325-Rembrandt-Van-Rijn (note the capital V in Van)

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/67032-Nancy-A-Collins
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/67039-Nancy-A-Collins

Somehow, the copyright and author credits originally went to different profiles.

Somehow, the copyright and author credits originally went to different profiles.

Yes, that is left over from the time where credits were duplicating if the same new person was entered twice on a new sub. I don't know if it's still happening or not.

http://www.biblio.gs/forum/44728-Bug-report-Author-names-duplicating

I don't know if it's still happening or not.

It was still happening a couple of weeks ago, but haven't "tested" it since.

It's happening. I duplicated Carl Jacobi and Nancy A. Collins within the past few days.

Oh, sorry. I got the picture from Adambassador's message that those were created a while ago and didn't double check...

also Raymond A. Montgomery, Jr.

Basic Books v Basic Books Inc
I'd be careful with these, these are not necessarily the same. There has been times when Basic Books was just an imprint (I'm not sure about the current status).

Just a reminder that the books could be moved under one entry already (usually the one with the lowest number in identical cases - otherwise the more correct one), and write something like this to the duplicate profiles: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/66398-Haffner-Press

OK, will do, thanks for the advice :)

It´s the same person, one credit for editor, one for contributing writer.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/109536-Andreas-Rauscher

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/109530-Andreas-Rauscher

Fixed Andreas Rauscher.

same person

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/109941-Dimitri-Liebsch

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/109944-Dimitri-Liebsch

You are still "producing" duplicates by adding new credits, if you one person has more than one credt in a new submission.

You can avoid the duplicates by entering the credits in parts. If you notice someone has been credited for multiple roles, just enter them once, submit, and add the rest once the entry has been created.

Thanks Mirva, I figured that out afterwards. Here's another one I found:

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/108034-Brian-W-Aldiss
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/108035-Brian-W-Aldiss

Both of which are ANVs for

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/64107-Brian-Aldiss

I've moved the books under one entry and renamed the duplicate ones. :)

Thanks for the tip, I will go this way at future contributions.

The duplicates I posted are still there.

Don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but it appears that if you use the same credit name twice in the same listing, Bibliogs creates 2 different credit strings. See Tomislav Tikulin on

https://www.biblio.gs/book/113936-Reunion-On-Alpha-Reticuli-II

Can this be stopped?

Don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but it appears that if you use the same credit name twice in the same listing, Bibliogs creates 2 different credit strings.

Yes, the devs are aware of it:
https://www.biblio.gs/forum/44728-Bug-report-Author-names-duplicating

10 months though, and still not fixed? It's the sort of annying bug that makes me almost want to give up on Biblibibliogs.

10 months though, and still not fixed?

Yeah... not enough complaining, I assume. ;-)

I've gone through the dupes from the past week with the exception of:

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/35346-Canongate-Books-Ltd

Obviously at least the credits with Ltd are dupes, but it needs to be discussed/researched what is the correct company name, and whether the others should be kept separate as imprints or for other reasons.

I've gone through the dupes from the past week with the exception of:

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/35346-Canongate-Books-Ltd
Obviously at least the credits with Ltd are dupes, but it needs to be >discussed/researched what is the correct company name, and whether the >others should be kept separate as imprints or for other reasons.

True
I'm sure there are cases where, regardless of the official company name, abbreviations and suffixes were used.
Do we want the credit to match the book or to be the correct company name?
What about when a company changes it name?

I'm sure there are cases where, regardless of the official company name, abbreviations and suffixes were used.

Yeah, definitely. But these probably should be handled on a case by case basis.

I think the preference for a primary credit should be the correct company name (if it appears on a book) - or at least a common variation of the correct name. Like in this case the official company name is "Canongate Books Limited" (which is not in the database yet), but "Canongate Books Ltd" is still correct enough IMO, and I'd suggest making that the main entry. Does that make sense?

Without further images, it's difficult to say whether "Canongate Books" or "Canongate" should be just ANVs of the company above, or whether they actually have a separate imprint. "Canongate Crime" at least seems to be a valid (and separate) imprint.

What about when a company changes it name?

Well, if we're following the Discogs standards, then that would be a new entry.

Yeah, definitely. But these probably should be handled on a case by case >basis.

I think the preference for a primary credit should be the correct company >name (if it appears on a book) - or at least a common variation of the correct >name. Like in this case the official company name is "Canongate Books
Limited" (which is not in the database yet), but "Canongate Books Ltd" is >still correct enough IMO, and I'd suggest making that the main entry. Does >that make sense?

Without further images, it's difficult to say whether "Canongate Books" or >"Canongate" should be just ANVs of the company above, or whether they >actually have a separate imprint. "Canongate Crime" at least seems to be a >valid (and separate) imprint.

Agreed. I've just noticed the Name Variation field and I assume that should be used for the book's spelling while the Credit field should link to the existing page? I've noticed older books using random punctuation, and that's in my small collection.

As a follow on, I've monied the two existing Pan Books pages to specify one as the Publisher and one as the Imprint. The releases and credits are almost correct but wanted to confirm this is appropriate before making any changes.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/29490-Pan-Books-Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/29483-Pan-Books

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26819-10-18 (10/18: correct form based on their website: https://www.10-18.fr/)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26739-10-18 (10-18: incorrect)

What we've been doing is changing the author's name to "Duplicate' and then when someone comes along to enter a new credit, they just do a search for "duplicate" and then edit it into the new credit prior to submitting the book.

Here is the "Edit" function. https://www.biblio.gs/credit/120819-Daniel-R-Schwarz/edit

Thank you.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26739-10-18 (10-18: incorrect)

Hmmmm. The contact page says "Éditions 10-18", as does their Facebook. Twitter has both.
https://www.10-18.fr/contact/
https://www.facebook.com/Editions.10.18/
https://twitter.com/Editions1018

Just saying because I doubt anyone is going to be excited about editing 71 submissions... Though some of those need some minor tweaks anyway, as they are a publisher not an editor (I know the French word can mean both).

I'll fix them for you, just hold on a sec. :)

wahoo ! fast & efficient ! Thank you mirva ^_^

Glad to be of help. :)

Done. :)

Though they are not really erased but renamed. Anyone can do it, and it's really easy to do:
- Click "Edit this Page"
- Edit the "Title" either to a new author/publisher/etc., or to "Duplicate" when someone else will use it for a future submission
- Save

Hi,

hmm I don´t know how this happened, but every credit is now three times in the database, only the third entry is filled with information, so the other two could be deleted, thx.

https://www.biblio.gs/book/135321-Recht-verstandlich-Eine-etwas-andere-Einfuhrung

Is it okay to just fix duplicates myself when it's obvious that it's not an alias or anything? I'd migrate the submissions to the page with the most submissions in it, and add a description to the empty one not to use it (like this one).

Also, maybe it would be helpful to make a list of exact duplicates, like the one pistolwhip posted, as an easy reference for submitters to recycle them?

I meant to say a list on the wiki.

There is a credit for Kurt Vonnegut and one for Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. I'm quite sure they are the same person. Some of my books have the Jr and some don't. I'm not sure use the main credit when submitting my books, or use the one that fits the name on the actual books.

://www.biblio.gs/credit/24040-Kurt-Vonnegut

/www.biblio.gs/credit/31569-Kurt-Vonnegut-Jr

Not sure if that should be a ANV or an alias (if/when that's implemented)?
If ANV, probably best to use main credit with ANV, if alias use the one as printed, I think.

Not sure how this happened:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/133114-Uitgeverij-Acco
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/133116-Uitgeverij-Acco (this one's empty now)

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/28687-TASCHEN
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/21686-Taschen

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/23355-Taschen-GmbH
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/23625-TASCHEN-GmbH
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/27119-Taschen-GmbH-Koln

I'm not sure what the guidelines are on company names. I've seen publishers split up between "Publisher", "Publisher Ltd" and "Publisher, Inc.". GmbH is the German name for "Limited" companies, so it falls under the same category.

I'm not sure when to credit what. Often both "Publisher" and "Publisher Ltd/Inc" are mentioned on a release.

Anyway, I'm going to merge Taschen credits and Taschen GmbH credits separately.

I think maybe Ltd/Inc company names should be used for things like Copyright holder, while the name without Ltd/Inc should be used as the publisher. What do you guys think?

Anyway, I'm going to merge Taschen credits and Taschen GmbH credits separately.

I think that's probably the best option. IIRC, at least in the books I have, Taschen GmbH is only mentioned as a copyright holder, never anywhere else.

I think maybe Ltd/Inc company names should be used for things like Copyright holder, while the name without Ltd/Inc should be used as the publisher. What do you guys think?

I think these should be handled on a case by case basis. I don't see a reason forcing two entries in cases where they clearly refer to the same entity, and both versions are used interchangeably.

Of course in some cases one is an imprint, and the other is a company, but IMO we shouldn't assume that to be true in every case.

It might be good to open a separate discussion about this, as this definitely should be discussed thoroughly at some point.

@mirva
Yeah, you're right. A separate probably would be useful to discuss cases where the distinction is unclear.

Btw - since the history view is what it is, it would be much appreciated if you could include a small note about what you're editing. :)

Oh, yes, I will keep that in mind in future, sorry!

Oh, yes, I will keep that in mind in future, sorry!

It's no big deal - I just want to learn from my mistakes. ;-)

I will double check the Random House Audiobooks/Random House Audio Publishing when I get home as I created both of those.

I've merged Random House Inc and Limited, will do the rest later.

Jonathan Cape (fixed):
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/21775-Jonathan-Cape-Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/40316-Jonathan-Cape-Ltd

Unclear - should this be split up?
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/35234-Chatto-Bodley-Head-Jonathan-Cape-Ltd

I will double check the Random House Audiobooks/Random House Audio Publishing when I get home as I created both of those.

Alright, the branding is "Random House Audiobooks" all over, and Random House Audio Publishing is mentioned in the contact information.

I found this: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20010827/37777-random-house-restructures-audio-unit.html
It says Random House Audiobooks was an imprint, as was Random House Audio. It seems that Random House Audio Publishing was a publishing group, so they should probably all kept separate.

Cool, nice find :)

I was thinking, would it be a good idea to list all subcompanies on a parent company's page?

would it be a good idea to list all subcompanies on a parent company's page?

Definitely. I wish the profile would have fields for it, but I guess we can use HTML for now. :)

Alright, I've created a new thread for that:
https://www.biblio.gs/forum/137039-Listing-related-companies-to-profiles

Looks like HTML will do quite well for now, imo.

Oddly, "Negotiated Through": ""This book was negotiated through Agnese Incisa Agenzia Letteraria, Torino."

Pretty sure "Leck" is just the location of the company:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/38106-Clausen-Bosse-Leck

The proper profile:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19224-Clausen-Bosse

But at 75 entries I'm not bothered at fixing this atm.

Hi, I fixed this. I also put all credits with "GmbH" into the proper profile.
Imo we can delete the wrong ones, so new entries will be made only in the proper profile.

Wrong profiles:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/38106-Clausen-Bosse-Leck
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/142742-Clausen-Boss (Mistype)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/25849-Clausen-Bosse-GmbH

Nice work, thanks! I've added a small text to 38106 and 142742 referring to the correct profile.
I'm not sure if GmbH should be merged too though?

IMO Clays Ltd, St Ives plc should be renamed "Clays Ltd" and these profiles should be merged into it:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/27995-Clays-Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/20576-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives

For now I'll be using "Clays Ltd, St Ives plc" where it's printed like that.

IMO Clays Ltd, St Ives plc should be renamed "Clays Ltd" and these profiles should be merged into it:

I agree - but some folks disagreed:
https://www.biblio.gs/forum/41574-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-CNV-Preference

Thinking about it, I suspect that we should be using Clays Ltd with Clays Ltd, St Ives plc as an ANV.

I think that Clays Ltd, St Ives plc is the most common, mind. So perhaps that's what we should be using!

I think that Clays Ltd, St Ives plc is the most common, mind. So perhaps that's what we should be using!

Since that's two companies, we can also enter them separately. ;-)

butler and tanner have lots of duplicates at the moment that could do with being merged.

fixed them!

Many variations of Mackays of Chatham plc
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19415-Mackays-Of-Chatham-PLC
Earliest version, 28 entries
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/21873-Mackays-of-Chatham-plc
Version added later but with 63 entries, so less work to standardise on this one
Plus others with fewer entries

Does someone know Greek?
Isn't this just a duplicate profile for H. P. Lovecraft:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/167534-Labkrapht-Khaouarnt-Philips ?

Does someone know Greek?
The internet is wonderful.
"To κάλεσμα του Κθούλου και Δαγών" is "To call of Cthulhu and Dagon."
"Ο ίσκιος πάνω από το Ίνσμουθ" is "The shadow over the Insmouth."
And "Λάβκραφτ Χάουαρντ Φίλιπς" is H.P. Lovecraft.
Isn't this just a duplicate profile for H. P. Lovecraft?
Yes. Assuming we consider Google Translate to be adequately authoritative.

So who will put Greek Lovecraft to correct credit name ?

Both profiles have been updated, and both have books, not sure which one should be kept:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/106386-Stuart-Gilbert
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/106387-Stuart-Gilbert

As one of my books https://www.biblio.gs/book/190626-The-Plague is linked to both Stuart Gilbert entries, I am happy to go with https://www.biblio.gs/credit/106387-Stuart-Gilbert which has three attributes. However, I am at a loss as to how I can edit my book to use just the one PAN.

One of the things that really bugs me about this site is that when I use a name that currently exists in the database, I receive a flash of something that lasts less than a nanosecond. For all I know, I could be receiving a subliminal message to drink more Coca Cola. I then have to use a second window to check if the name exists in the database. No wonder duplicate credits are occurring.

In relation to the above, it is frustrating, one (hopefully temporary) workaround is if you type the word slowly the list of possible credits doesn't disappear.

Yeah, that works. For existing duplicates I just remove the last letter of the name to get the list to appear. Sometimes you have to do more than just one letter, but that usually works.

Also take into account that the system doesn't recognize some characters. So if you're looking for Random Name (2), you can only type in "Random Nam" for the full list to show up.

What is also annoying that it's sometimes really hard to tell which one is the correct entry... The list gives nothing but the name. It would be better if it gave a picture, part of the profile or even the entry number in addition.

Sorry for the all the complaints, but I just woke up and haven't gotten my tea yet. :P

Hmm, 'slowly' works a treat. Thanks for the hint folks. I have consolidated the credits for Stuart Gilbert using https://www.biblio.gs/credit/106387-Stuart-Gilbert

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/196482-R-G-and-F-J-Richardson
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/196483-R-G-and-F-J-Richardson

I inadvertently created a duplicate. I have swapped all credits to: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/196483-R-G-and-F-J-Richardson so the earlier version is not required. Sorry.

another Clausen & Bosse Variation. CPI is the printing group Clausen & Bosse belong to. The right credit would be: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19224-Clausen-Bosse

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/37587-CPI-Clausen-Bosse-Leck

Re Clausen & Bosse, The company was acquired by CPI in 2002
Wikipedia
If I am interpreting the company register correctly, the name of the company changed in March 2017 from Clausen & Bosse GmbH to CPI Clausen & Bosse GmbH. Leck is the location so not strictly speaking part of the name.
https://www.unternehmensregister.de
The CPI website indicates that Clausen & Bosse is still trading as Clausen & Bosse GmbH; the change to CPI Clausen & Bosse GmbH is quite recent and the website may not be updated yet.
So Clausen & Bosse was and independent business until 2002 when it was acquired by CPI group but continued to trade under its existing name until it became CPI Clausen & Bosse in March 2017. So I think both versions are valid here, depending on the date.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/194711-Zoe-Dominic
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/194713-Zoe-Dominic

The first PAN is not required as I discovered her name is correctly spelled Zoë Dominic. I created the latter PAN to incorporate the umlaut.

This is a mistake I made, it needs deleting. Thanks.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/221791-Kama-Sutra-and-Tantric-Sexsubject

alexl unlike on Discogs, eliminating a duplicate credit on Bibliogs is simple.

Just edit the credit and in the title section overtype the name with the word Duplicate and in the submission notes, just state that the credit is a duplicate and not required and is ready for recycling (or words to that effect). Someone (usually the industrious elahrairah) will recycle the duplicate at some stage for a new credit.

Your mistakes will disappear without trace (almost).

I meant to add that I recycled the 'Kama Sutra and Tantric Sexsubject' credit for you.

First, an apology for all of the duplicates I've accidentally created as a result of the "add a book" form's auto-fill.

Is there any way to turn it off?
It seems somehow incompatible with Safari; I click on an "auto-filled" entry or allow it to stand (the one generated here, not by safari), like Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., and only the letters I've manually typed in are saved?
Also'd like to thank mirva for fixing so many of those auto-fill problems.

mirva, Иван Яковлевич Билибин had two credits and Ivan Bilibin just the one, so opted for the first variation. I have recycled PAN Ivan Bilibin, found another credit for Иван Яковлевич Билибин and updated his profile with images. All done and dusted.

fantastic work everyone :)

Just noticed that the Kurt Vonnegut/Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. duplicate that pistolwhip mentioned 9 months ago had not been sorted. PAN Kurt Vonnegut had the majority of credits, so transferred the Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. credits to the first PAN using ANVs and readied the redundant PAN for recycling.

Is there any way to turn it off?

I don't think so. But I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's all fixable. :)

Иван Яковлевич Билибин had two credits and Ivan Bilibin just the one, so opted for the first variation

Thanks! I just couldn't decide which one should be kept... one had two releases, but the other had a profile. They were too equal in my mind... lol.

This is not a duplicate credit but a book:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/200162-MISTAKE-DUPLICATED-Tanguedia-no-18

Would it be ok to just change that to another book?

mirva I have left a message in the history for Alcides_Cuneo who created both versions seeking clarification on what this means. Hopefully, I shall receive an answer.

I don't think the user knew how to remove/recycle the entry, and marked the duplicate book/magazine sub that way hoping someone else would do so.

If the user doesn't respond, I think it would be safe to recycle the [MISTAKE-DUPLICATED] entry; I believe that was his intention.
His other Tanguedia #18 entry, like the other issues, has a cover image, etc.

Thanks davilona. I have removed the data and marked the title as Duplicate. Alcides_Cuneo did not respond to my comment left 7 days ago, however I think the title "[MISTAKE DUPLICATED] Tanguedia no 18" was a fair indication that it was no longer required.

I am here! Sorry if I didn't answer, sincerely I wasn't aware of those comments. I didn't know (and I still don't) how to recycle an entry, so thanks for doing it for me this time. I think I'll learn. ;)

Hi, Alcides_Cuneo, to edit/delete your book entry: click on "edit this page", delete the old info including the title--then when you want to add a new book, use that "blank" entry. The only thing you cant remove is the format, but you can change that when you want to add a new book.
You can give it a title "duplicate-to recycle" or something else so you'll remember why you removed the info.

Alcides_Cuneo I have consolidated credits for Gustavo Wojciechowski to 264608 and marked 298829 as a duplicate. Fixed.

Swapped all of the books on the later Guild Publishing credit to the earlier one and marked the redundant one as a duplicate, ready for recycling. Fixed.

There was a time when I wouldn't have hesitated in consolidating Dragons World and Dragons World Ltd, but these days I don't know. There might be something significant about Ltd that differentiates the two. This Wikipedia cites both names as imprints of Paper Tiger Books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Tiger_Books

I have fixed the Gilles Néret duplications using name variations where required.

I have swapped the Archiv für Kunst und Geschichte, Berlin credits to Archiv für Kunst und Geschichte credit with name variations.

dzed I have corrected the three sets of duplicates. Well spotted.

BadMoon I have corrected both sets of duplicates.

BadMoon I have corrected the Michael Crichton duplicate. I have partially corrected Elsnerdruck. I quickly searched the internet and Elsnerdruck appears to have only the one location and that is in Berlin. It could be argued that Elsnerdruck GmbH is the oldest entry in the database therefore it should be kept and Elsnerdruck Berlin marked as the duplicate. This would require a sizeable mass edit, so I will post a forum topic canvassing opinion on the subject.

westpier I have corrected the M Rules duplicate. Simply a user with an over eager punctuation finger. Thank heavens for images with submissions.

BadMoon as I was researching Elsnerdruck I discovered that the company was located in Berlin for 130 years and at the end of 2003 they relocated to Pößneck in Thuringia: https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article280211/Traditionsfirma-Elsnerdruck-vor-dem-Aus.html

Therefore, there is an historical reason for keeping both Elsnerdruck Berlin and Elsnerdruck GmbH. Whether the two credits are used correctly is another matter.

It could be argued that instead of Elsnerdruck GmbH there should be an Elsnerdruck, Pößneck, however that could be difficult to retrospectively implement and misleading if that name is not credited in the submitted publications.

Elsnerdruck was included to an already existing factory in Pößnek. I'm not sure, if the brand Elsnerdruck was in use for printings after that in 2003. No later than 2006, when there was a merger with https://www.bookogs.com/credit/79485-mohn-media there should be no more credit for Elsnerdruck as printing company.

bartondavis corrected Noël Coward duplicate

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/44931-london-features-international
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/292892-lfi

I've done some tidying but chosen to keep the LFI profile as is rather than remove it. The reason being is London Features International is more often than not abbreviated to LFI or L.F.I. and many users may not know what LFI refers to.

BadMoon in reference to Elsnerdruck, it would be very helpful to find a source that verifies the name ceased to exist in 2003 when the firm relocated. My German language skills are basic, so it is difficult for me to research this subject. Your assistance would be appreciated.

If it can be proved that Elsnerdruck only existed in Berlin then there is no reason for having the two credits. With this information I can then canvass the merge in the forum.

Anaideia, there are some really confusing, contradictory informations to find about Elsnerdruck. Conclusion: Elsnerdruck (regardless of the printing company, the publisher [renamed to Otto Elsner Verlag] and the foundation [founded in 2006]) was always resident in Berlin. The printing branch was included to GGP Media GmbH, Pößneck and not used as stand alone "brand" (for printing) anymore (Mohn Media Elsnerdruck GmbH appears on the net as company designation (located in Pößneck) but I didn't find a clue if this was used as credit anywhere).

Talking Mohn Media:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37566-mohn-co-gmbh
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19536-mohn-co-gmbh
incorrect: "Mohn & Co" (founded 1946) was not a GmbH but an oHG (these days, there is actually a [not related] company named Mohn & Co GmbH, offering factory equipment/ installation). It was renamed to "Mohndruck Reinhard Mohn" in 1966
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/88105-mohndruck-reinhard-mohn-ohg
Around 1971 the companys legal form (? correct english designation?) was changed to GmbH
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/79571-mohndruck-reinhard-mohn-gmbh
in 1979 renamed again to "Mohndruck Graphische Betriebe" https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37862-mohndruck-graphische-betriebe-gmbh
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/211450-mohndruck-gmbh
in 1999 renamed again to "Mohn Media"
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/79485-mohn-media
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/219450-mohn-media

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21374-ggp-media-gmbh-possneck
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21910-ggp-media-gmbh

some really confusing, contradictory informations to find about Elsnerdruck

I'm glad you found the same. Personally, I think a credit name of just Elsnerdruck is probably sufficient and if users can add name variations as they see fit. I will post a thread for a name change and merge, but I can't guarantee a result.

As for Mohn Media.

I have transferred attributions with https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37566-mohn-co-gmbh to https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19536-mohn-co-gmbh However, you state that Mohn & Co GmbH didn't exist, yet if you have a look at the colophon image (3rd on file) for https://www.bookogs.com/book/7520-das-madchen-vom-moorhof you will see the credit for this very company.

Next:
I assume you feel that https://www.bookogs.com/credit/88105-mohndruck-reinhard-mohn-ohg and https://www.bookogs.com/credit/79571-mohndruck-reinhard-mohn-gmbh are both valid credits.

Next:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/211450-mohndruck-gmbh is probably a shortened form of https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37862-mohndruck-graphische-betriebe-gmbh I have left a note on one of the submissions to canvass opinion on merging the shortened form.

Next:
I have transferred attributions with https://www.bookogs.com/credit/219450-mohn-media to https://www.bookogs.com/credit/79485-mohn-media

Last:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21910-ggp-media-gmbh has a directive to use https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21374-ggp-media-gmbh-possneck but unfortunately that doesn't stop users from adding books to it. Maybe I will get rid of it altogether.

I guess, such dfferent names for only one company (the "Mohn" thing) could never be fixed through the name variation function, so there better should be one credit for each impression, you fixed it perfectly.
Very surprised about the Mohn & Co GmbH credit (note to myself:never trust one single source). Usually I try to avoid spreading what we call "gefährliches Halbwissen" (dangerous half-knowledge) in Germany.

Just to follow up on the Elsnerdruck credits: I sent a PM to BadMoon earlier today outlining the need for a timeline of the company with reliable sources backing the data. Until this is forthcoming, I will take no further action.

I try to avoid spreading what we call "gefährliches Halbwissen"

Don't be too hard on yourself. For every fact there is usually a contradictory one. Sometimes the truth is located somewhere in the middle.

westpier the Hulton Getty question was raised some time ago by elahrairah: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/239020-hulton-getty

As you can probably tell it didn't get resolved.

Thanks for the updates on Hulton and Shuster.

GruenerTee fixed René Magritte duplicate.

Fixed the Simon & Schuster duplicates as per mirva's list.

BadMoon I'm sorry I overlooked your comment.

Detlef Klever looks as if it should never had existed as all attributions used a NV of Detlef Klewer. I have corrected the duplication.

I have corrected the Franckh'sche Verlagshandlung, W. Keller & Co. duplicates.

westpier I have cleaned up the Hulton Archive duplicates.

BadMoon corrected both duplicates.

There are 4 John Harris entries and by the looks of it only need to be 3.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/31855-john-harris - was mixed now only Sci-Fi artist ie. John Harris (3)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/98848-john-harris-2 - English curator / historian
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/105962-john-harris-3 - Sci-Fi artist
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/113518-john-harris-4 - music journalist writer

Basically the first entry was had a mix of John Harris (2) and John Harris (4), I started tidying it up before realising it will have no entries if I move everything. So ok to move all of John Harris (4) to John Harris? I'll have to do it tomorrow.

You have my vote.

So ok to move all of John Harris (4) to John Harris?

Go for it.

kwulf, fixed duplicate.

The information from the later submission needs to be transferred to the earlier submission. Then the details can be removed (the Formate can't be deleted), the title changed to Duplicate and the images disabled. The Duplicate book credit will in time be recycled for another submission.

Has the OS of the later submission been made aware of the duplication, i.e. a comment left in the history?

With reference to https://www.bookogs.com/book/404860-record-collector-252 : I have posted a comment in the history and started a discussion topic https://www.bookogs.com/forum/405870-duplication It is now up to the OS to respond.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/235168-diogenes
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/172521-diogenes-of-apollonia

Two different people. The first one is Diogenes the Cynic and the second is Diogenes of Apollonia. I will complete the profiles so that there is no confusion.

I think these two could be considered duplicates as Diogenes Verlag is located only in Zurich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_Verlag and https://www.diogenes.ch/leser.html

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/222924-diogenes-verlag-zurich - consolidate to Diogenes Verlag
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/268011-diogenes-verlag-ag-zurich - consolidate to Diogenes Verlag AG

The rest are valid.

Just for the record:
Diogenes is an AG since 1966

Thanks for the updates on Diogenes

BadMoon, I have moved the later credit attributes to the earlier credit. Marked the latter as a duplicate.

Yeah, those were just the ones that showed up in the dropdown for me. Do you think we should merge those into just two entries, one for the printing company, and one for the publisher?

I desperately want a full word dropdown, the first letter search will create duplicates forever and a day.

Yes, I think this should be merged My suggestions:
Keep
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/91592-c-h-becksche-buchdruckerei-nordlingen
as this seems to be mostly used one (on actual items). So the following two are candidates for merging:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19177-c-h-becksche-buchdruckerei
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/120703-c-h-becksche-buchdruckerei-nordlingen
As they seem to credit themselves in a new way at present, I would leave
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/30649-druckerei-c-h-beck-nordlingen
as it's the older one and merge this one to it
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/135336-druckerei-c-h-beck-nordlingen

I didn't took a second look at the publishing branch at the current status.

Ambassador_M, they have been set up as two separate credits. The clue is in the profile information for Hardcore Punk.

Ah right, sorry for the mistake!

"Another German company:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/242802-hermann-lichterhand-verlag-gmbh-co
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/103811-hermann-luchterhand-verlag-gmbh-co-kg"

I couldn't find a hint, that gmbh & co (without kg) was official at any point but that doesn't mean anything. But the typo is already fixed.

Alright, I'll leave them be for now then.

I already merged the C. H. Beck'sche Buchdruckerei, Nördlingen duplicates yesterday, and will now go forward with the Druckerei C. H. Beck, Nördlingen duplicate.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/286912-sapo
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/421622-sapo-wsoy
Later (SaPo WSOY) created by mistake, listed entry moved to the older entry (SAPO)

brand0 I have removed the duplicate.

If you find you have created a credit in error, just retitle it to Duplicate and save. If there are images, then simply disable them.

This Duplicate credit will in time be recycled by another user for something else.

BadMoon could you expand on why these three are duplicates. Could they be historical phases of the company for example?

Well, kind of.
At first, there was Bavaria Verlag (aka Bavaria Verlag Heinrich Frese), Gauting
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/131828-bavaria-verlag
Initially a priodical & book publisher (as it seems), I've found publications from the late 1940s but no infos when it was founded or when they stoppped publishing. The first mentioning of Bavaria as a photography archive I've found is 1983.

The Company was renamed to Bavaria Bildagentur GmbH, Gauting in November 1989 and the former registry was erased.

The company was sold to VCG by the end of 1995 (including a 30 years rental contract for the two company buildings). June 1996 registry of Bavaria Bildagentur Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, München (same adress as VCGs headquater, the Gauting premises still main operation centre).
Unconfirmed date: December 1996 the Gauting registry got erased, other sources state the Gauting GmbH was active until 2005 (at least). They had offices in Hamburg and Düsseldorf during the mid/late 90s, no accurate dates available

VCG was taken over by Getty Images in the early 2000s; the Bavaria brand got disbanded and the premises in Gauting got closed (sometimes in 2008), despite the still running rental contract.

The dates of the three credits are from the 70s, 80s & 90s on
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/72544-bavaria-gauting
the 80s & 00s on
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/110114-bavaria
and the 90s & 00s on
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/422118-bavaria-bilderdienst
I'll vote that as duplicates.

But, althouh I've already put a profile on Bavaria, Gauting, we better choose the simple Bavaria as main entry, don't we? To avoid duplicate reappearing.

I think I was a bit too eager to add a new credit as I think it may cause confusion. There are two Bob Marley groups:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/426674-the-wailers (with Peter Tosh & Bunny Wailer)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/38074-bob-marley-the-wailers (After Tosh & Wailer left)

However, some releases on Discogs credit Bob Marley & The Wailers when Tosh and Wailer are still in the band. Also with Marley's fame the group seem to be rarely credited to just The Wailers. So I predict potential confusion in future. Shall I remove The Wailers (and all my lovely links I've just added)? Or just leave it as they're linked anyway?

Shall I remove The Wailers (and all my lovely links I've just added)? Or just leave it as they're linked anyway?

I'm not really familiar with them, but I always try to think what would be the easiest and most useful for other users. Would people be looking for books about one of them only? Do you think people would know to link to the correct entry? Are both subjects common, and are there a lot of books about both of them?

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/431446-cardinal-editions
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/80517-cardinal-edition
(I prefer to use the first one - check images I added - but I leave it to the more knowledgeable to decide which one should stay. Definitely the same though.)

This entry is also for the same series (of Pocket Books, Inc.):
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/219761-cardinal

I took care of the Poe duplicate work.

I prefer to use the first one - check images I added - but I leave it to the more knowledgeable to decide which one should stay. Definitely the same though.

I agree that the name should be Cardinal Editions. You could still use the oldest entry and just rename it - but it's not that big of a deal either way.

Back to the subject of the Wailers vs Bob Marley & The Wailers, only reggae buffs will know (or probably care about!) the difference. I doubt there are many books solely about The Wailers. However, on the magazine front it may be different, as things like Record Collector may actually say The Wailers but I expect Bob Marley's will feature prominently. There again its the same with Bob Marley & The Wailers.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/369063-christiane-f
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/45283-christiane-felscherinow

Not sure whether to keep both, have the first credit to be about the film/book and the second about the person. But there again the author is credited as Christian F.

Also what to call the 'works' - I think the original German title was 'Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo' but Christian F. (the author) was frequently used as part of the title (due to the film?)

According to Wiki - "The UK issue of the book was released by Corgi on the 21st August 1981 under the title H. Autobiography of a Child Prostitute and Heroin Addict and was translated by Susanne Flatauer...The American issue of the book was released by Bantam in 1982 under the title Christiane F.: Autobiography of a Girl of the Streets and Heroin Addict".

Normally, I would say keep both but I looked at the attributions for https://www.bookogs.com/credit/45283-christiane-felscherinow and none of them actually credit that name but use Christine F. instead. Therefore, I would transfer those books to the Christine F. and mark Christine Felscherinow as a duplicate. If at some stage a book is submitted to the database then a new credit can be generated. Whether that will ever happen is unknown but in the meantime I think it is pointless having a credit that is not used.

She is always mentioned as Christiane F. even when appearing with her full name.
The comparsion is probably a little hobbling, but if you know Cher, you don't have to know Cherilyn Sarkisian La Pierre.

Sorry westpier I see that there was a 2nd part to your question which I failed to address. The Works credit is always the original publication title, in this example Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo. Any variations of this can be added using the Works name variation facility in the respective book submissions.

This is the German wiki page for the book: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wir_Kinder_vom_Bahnhof_Zoo

OK, thanks for the replies, I agree with using Christiane F. then.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/177109-j-h-haynes (author)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/255717-j-h-haynes-and-company-limited (2 entries)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21058-j-h-haynes-co-ltd (15 entries)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34148-j-h-haynes-co-ltd (4 entries)

I think the first one can be left alone as 'author' John Harold Haynes. The other 3 need merging probably in to the one with entries. However, I will mention that the book I've got writes the name like the one with 4 entries, without a space between - J.H. Haynes rather than J. H. Haynes.

J.H. Haynes rather than J. H. Haynes

Yeah, it's registered without the space as J.H. Haynes & Co. Limited.

Does someone want to edit 15+ books? If so, then I'd move everything to the correct spelling (#34148) as it has a profile and all. If you wanna take the easy route, then I'd move everything to the earliest entry (#21058) and just edit the name. I think either way works.

Also, the author entry has some books where J.H. Haynes & Co. Ltd. has been NV'd to the author: https://www.bookogs.com/book/197365-fiat-127-1971-to-1983-all-models-903-cc-1049-cc-1301-cc-owners-workshop-manual (for example)

Kept https://www.bookogs.com/credit/177109-j-h-haynes as he is credited as the author on some books.

Marked https://www.bookogs.com/credit/255717-j-h-haynes-and-company-limited and https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34148-j-h-haynes-co-ltd as duplicates

Transferred the relevant attributes to https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21058-j-h-haynes-co-ltd with appropriate ANVs.

I think that is sorted.

Thanks!

The OS of the book that generated the credit obviously thought so, as they went on to complete the credit profile as well. I have swapped the book to the earlier credit using an ANV (as per image) and marked the later credit as a duplicate.

Thanks!

Too many Alistairs/Alastairs perhaps? Corrected error.

Yes, it's the same and the images of the books on the Schuenemann credit show it spelled Schünemann.

Yep, they were submitted by a German user who had a chronic aversion to the umlaut. I have marked the latter as a duplicate. So, we now have:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/20082-carl-schunemann (publisher) / https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19653-carl-schunemann-verlag (publisher and legal entity) / https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19652-schunemann (imprint)

Thanks :)

Btw - if someone is bored and needs something to do, we have a duplicate "Children's" genre (it was updated to "Children's literature" at one point).

https://www.bookogs.com/browse/book?genre=Children%27s

I can't see why the staff can't run a job and update all of these 512 books in one hit. That's why computers were invented.

Make that 515 books.

I wonder why they haven't done that - or any of the credit roles that have been updated?

mirva, I have sent the staff a begging letter asking for assistance. With any luck we won't have to edit the 515 books.

Let's hope they can mass update them. :)

We've updated those genres from "Children's" to "Children's literature". Let us know if you see anything weird. And yes, for simple structural but numerous updates like these please do reach out, bulk updates are easier than people doing it by hand.

I wonder why they haven't done that - or any of the credit roles that have been updated?

I think we must have just missed them. Are there other ones you've noticed specifically?

Great, thank you. :)

Are there other ones you've noticed specifically?

There are some credit roles that have been updated.

Copyright (Cover/Jacket Art) -> Copyright Holder (Cover/Jacket Art)
Copyright (Original Edition) -> Copyright Holder (Original Edition)

"Copyright Holder (Illustrations/Photos)" was split into two credits but those have to be updated manually.

Thanks for an early Christmas present. I now have time to read a book (or two).

BadMoon do you have a preference out of the three?

I'm swaying between the one with "von" as it's her full name and the one with the "v." as it's mostly used.
I doubt the third one.

I guess, I'll vote for the "v.": the older one (of the two qualified) with the most items listetd.

Thanks BadMoon, I have consolidated everything to Alexandra v. Reinhardt using name variations, and marked the other two credits as duplicates.

That's easy. 32892 marked as a duplicate.

kalli, I knew there was another role that had been modified and it has taken me 2 weeks to remember it (and another 10 minutes to find this thread).

Distributed by -> Distributed by/Director of Distribution

And another:

Cover Design by -> Cover/Jacket Design by

thanks mirva and SextonBlake. I have moved those credit roles

"Copyright Holder (Illustrations/Photos)" was split into two credits but those have to be updated manually.

I could get you a list of the submissions that include credits with that role if that helps?

I could get you a list of the submissions that include credits with that role if that helps?

It certainly would. Hopefully, there aren't that many to edit:)

Just out of interest, is there anyway of getting a list of book and work Credits that are displaying error messages due to incorrect date formats?

And another:

Layout -> Layout by/Layout Coordinator

Fixed both.

That's weird. Normally, when I retitle a Credit to Duplicate the link becomes broken, yet I can click on the above changed credits and they lead to the Duplicate. This site is full of wonderment.

Another one:
Periodical Imprint -> Periodical Title

I could get you a list of the submissions that include credits with that role if that helps?

That would definitely help, though the main problem is that it's not always clear which one is the correct role.

Not sure if this is the right topic for this (if someone knows better, please let me know), but this same zine's been uploaded twice, both times with different infos present/missing heh. I assume the page number difference comes from one uploaded counting the covers as pages while the other one didn't.
https://www.bookogs.com/book/431872-bestial-desecration-fanzine-1
https://www.bookogs.com/book/429022-bestial-desecration-1

I have left a note in the History of the latter submission (431872) asking the OS to determine if this is a duplicate.

If the OS doesn't respond in a timely manner, then we might have to reconsider our options at a later date.

Slight difficulties regarding the press / photo agencies.

Associated Press: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/45515-associated-press
AP: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/62134-ap
AP Photo: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/299875-ap-photo
AP Images: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/225025-ap-images

Associated Press is the parent company with AP Images the sub-label as it were:
http://www.apimages.com

So suggest entry for Associated Press and one for AP Images

Likewise:
Press Association: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/317809-press-association
Press Association Images: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19507-press-association-images

Keep as is? Or change Press Association Images to PA Images?

Both companies are frequently just credited as PA & AP.

So suggest entry for Associated Press and one for AP Images

I agree with that.

Keep as is

I think so. The profile for Press Association actually mentions PA Images as a distinct entity.

I have edited the books that credited https://www.bookogs.com/credit/255704-ap-wild-world-photos and https://www.bookogs.com/credit/256897-ap-wide-world converting them into separate credits using NV's where necessary. I have marked those two Credits for recycling.

I would make AP Photo an NV of AP Images.

Whoops! I accessed so many links that I forgot where I read that PA Images information: it was in the external link that you provided and not in any of the Bookogs profiles.

Hmm, it seems I didn't fully understand the last part of your question. I have renamed Press Association Images to PA Images as this is the name they use on their company website, and it is also listed this way in the Wiki article on Press Association. I have linked Press Association and PA Images and vice versa in their respective profiles.

An overload of AP and PA information for me to digest in one sitting!

Thanks for sorting that out. I'm for AP Images as well, so removing AP & AP Photo.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/73621-valerie-wilmer
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/466053-val-wilmer

I was staring at the Val Wilmer profile for ages convinced I'd created it as I remember the profile pic. But couldn't work out why none of by magazines were listed.

I have marked Val Wilmer as a duplicate, and transferred the attributions to Valerie Wilmer with NVs as required. Great image selection by the way!

I have marked 42583 as a duplicate as this was generated later and had the least number of attributions.

I think as with Discogs, the duration of a credit is not as important as what is most relevant and correct. However, on the point of duration, if you look at the history of 42583, I edited it 3 years ago when 24370 was edited 2 years ago. Not sure why the older one has the higher number.

All that said, I'm fine with the change.

As far as I know Credits are generated sequentially, therefore it is impossible for 42583 to be generated prior to 24370. But stranger things have happened at sea. I did take into account both the relevance and duration. The earlier credit had the most attributions, therefore it had greater relevance and it was generated first. The second credit in theory should not have been generated as it was simply a name variation.

One of the problems with accessing the history is that the first version can not be viewed. The staff are aware of this bug.

Picture editor etc David / Dave Brolan has two entries, unsure which one to keep as Dave has one more entry.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29144-david-brolan
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/36915-dave-brolan

I would just keep the earlier entry, David Brolan. I don't think it's that big of a deal since he seems to use both David and Dave.

I would just keep the earlier entry, David Brolan

+1

Publisher credits can be a mess..

These three probably all should be named De Boekerij

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/85808-de-boekerij
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/75320-de-boekerij-bv-amsterdam
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/75323-de-boekerij-amsterdam

And these two both Meulenhoff Boekerij

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/219172-meulenhoff-boekerij
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37634-meulenhoff-boekerij-bv

I'm fairly certain De Boekerij and Meulenhoff Boekerij are separate - though related - entities, so no need for merging that.

The community have decided to create credits for the publisher and any legal entities, so the only one that could be a duplicate is 75323, unless the publisher moved to a different location, or had several locations. If that is so, then we keep separate credits to differentiate the history of the company or geographical locations.

I have marked https://www.bookogs.com/credit/40343-j-m-meulenhof as a duplicate. It must have been created in error as it had no attributions.

I found the Dutch Wiki page for the publisher which tells me zilch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Boekerij and the official website is similarly lacking in detail: http://www.boekerij.nl/nl/p4c233eeee09cd/over-uitgeverij-boekerij.html

I really don't know where the publisher is located. Are they now in Amsterdam, and have they always been in this location?

Skimming the site.. seems De Boekerij did have it's first incarnation elsewhere, not Amsterdam (where they currently are). Okay, no mergers needed.

I'll keep this in mind about the legal entities and such (may have to change how I'm submitting some stuff.. I'll learn to do it right!)

Awkward one here between Bauer Media & Bauer Media Group.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/31164-bauer-media
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/255966-bauer-media-group

I'd originally assumed that the former was for UK titles and the latter European. However, just spotted that Polish titles also appear under Bauer Media.

The Bauer Media Group took over big UK publisher EMAP in 2008 ans renamed it https://www.bookogs.com/credit/101059-bauer-london-lifestyle-ltd

However, former EMAP titles are also listed under Bauer Media. Keep as is?

I would keep as is at present. It might be a bit of a jumble but there seems to be a difference between the two. Whether users are selecting the correct credit or the information listed in publications is always precise remains to be seen.

In some countries they are called just Bauer Media, in some Bauer Media Group
https://www.bauermedia.com/en/contact/locations/

The registered name of the company is Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG.
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/90420-heinrich-bauer-verlag
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/90418-heinrich-bauer-fachzeitschriften-verlag-kg

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23215-allan-folsom
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/101945-allan-r-folsom
Allan R. Folsom is listed as Copyright Holder on Des Teufels Kardinal, but is actually just a name variation of Allan Folsom (whose full name is Allan Reed Folsom). I don't see a reason to keep both entries...

Yes, keep Allan Folsom.

Two more:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/372080-ira-robbins - 2 books
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/477811-ira-a-robbins - 4 books

Though Discogs has 29 entries under Ira Robbins and just 5 under Ira A. Robbins.

Not a dupe but more a mass edit.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/238763-diamond-publishing-group-ltd
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/412058-diamond-publishing-ltd

The first credit originally published Record Collector until early 2000s (judging by start date of second credit). Then replaced by second credit. However, from #283 onwards they are listed under the first credit with an ANV of the second credit, when they should just be listed as the second credit.

Though Discogs has 29 entries under Ira Robbins and just 5 under Ira A. Robbins.

I would just go with Ira Robbins. It's how he is more commonly referred as, and it's also consistent with Discogs.

https://twitter.com/iarobbins
http://www.trouserpress.com/faq.php

Abbreviated name: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/269723-harpercollins-childrens

After checking the images, I just fixed the only credit under that entry, and marked the entry duplicate.

@Bad Moon How did you merge Beatrice Dalle? Wasn't aware of that function.

I believe that was done by staff. I've seen that happen in Filmogs.

It wasn't me!
I will not do any more merges myself (except it's only one item listed ;) ), because staff's merging program translates all items automatically!

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/26666-william-collins-sons-co-ltd
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/417309-william-collins-sons-co-ltd

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34307-collins
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/216804-collins-glasgow (needs anv)

Fixed the William Collins Sons Co Ltd. duplicate.

I'm guessing the staff won't be able to fix the Collins, Glasgow duplicate as this requires the addition of an NV and I think this could only be done manually. I need to investigate this matter further and I don't have the time right now.

I also fixed the Alex Scarrow duplicate.

Fixed Michael France duplicate

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/487177-martin-jarvis-2
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/295266-martin-jarvis

Fairly sure this is the Martin Jarvis... actor, who voices a lot of children's books and therefore gets adaptation credits.

You are correct. Martin Jarvis voiced a lot of Just William stories and William’s Birthday by Richmal Crompton listed in The Children's Book of Books 2000 is one of them. I will swap the credits with 2nd version to 1st and mark the 2nd as a duplicate.

Hippies - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/407467-hippies
The Hippie Movement - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/490148-the-hippie-movement

Not sure what i prefer, but if we keep Hippie Movement I think 'The' needs to be removed.

I'd keep Hippie Movement.

I have removed "The" from "The Hippie Movement" as it makes it difficult to locate, here's the new link: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/490148-hippie-movement

Wait for some more replies before ditching either one.

Thanks, I'd hang fire with the other one, I've asked MikeBluesFr whether Hippies is the movement or a band of that name.

Hi, for Rock & Folk article it is about the Hippie Movement

I see MikeBluesFr used Hippie Movement so I have marked Hippies as a duplicate.

I have About/Subjects to that book.

We have to for Hodder & Stoughton the first with 171 credits
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/25180-hodder-stoughton
The other Hodder and Stoughton with 21 credits.
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/417080-hodder-and-stoughton

I presume the best thing to do is change the latter one and use ANVs?

Correct, the latter should not have been created as it is just a NV of the first.

That's done. I marked the latter as a Duplicate.

Excellent. I was going to give you a hand once I had finished my book, but you beat me to it.

No probs, it was quickly done.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/403640-mafia-american Added 6 months ago
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/492445-american-mafia Added 3 weeks ago

However, there already exists also:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/212226-mafia-sicilian
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/483787-mafia-russian

I prefer the format with 'Mafia' appearing first as easier to find and add to correct entry.

It didn't occur to me to look for Mafia (American).

The only suggestion I would make is to remove the brackets and list the credits as Mafia: XXXX, as this is consistent with similar credits such as World War II, etc.

One other comment. A new user has been submitting numerous books on the Mafia (American) and the latter credit American Mafia has 20 attributions whereas Mafia (American) has one. I would think it would be easier to retitle the latter and mark the former as a duplicate and move the one attribution across, as it would save a lot of work.

Ambassador_M I have had a look at the Ernest H. Shepard duplication. I note that a lot of the submissions for Ernest H. Shepard use an NV of E. H. Shepard, and Wikipedia list him as E. H. Shepard, so there might be an argument for using E. H. Shepard instead.

mirva this probably something you have an interest in as I notice you have made many of the submissions attributed to him.

mirva this probably something you have an interest in as I notice you have made many of the submissions attributed to him.

Yeah, I merged multiple entries a long time ago, and just probably chose the earliest one. I personally prefer the current name but it might be just because I'm used to it.

He's commonly credited in various ways (usually Ernest H. Shepard, Ernest Shepard, or E. H. Shepard). No matter what will be the primary name, there will be duplicates unless people actually check whether he's in the database under another variation.

I'm guessing https://www.bookogs.com/credit/157287-assirio-alvi has been sorted as that is now a Credit for Kiva Colley.

Yes, Assiro Alvi now sorted, sorry I should have said.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/449110-doctor-feelgood
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/42319-doctor-feel-good

Spanish 'director' of Zona de Obras, is that 'publisher'? Not sure which to keep.

I've merged the Shepards. If someone feels like the PAN should be changed, discussion about that can continue.

Re: Dr. Feel Good. The four submissions using those credits have images that show the name. Two print the name as Dr. Feel Good and the other two show this as Dr. FeelGood. So neither of the two generated Credits was correct.

I have retitled the earlier credit to Dr. Feel Good and used NV's for the two Dr. FeelGood variants. I have marked https://www.bookogs.com/credit/449110-doctor-feelgood as a duplicate.

Transferred books with the latter credit to the earlier and marked https://www.bookogs.com/credit/194709-new-york-times as a duplicate

The (sic) credits can be considered as three different entities:

(sic) - possibly an imprint or shorthand form of the publisher name
(sic) idea y creación editorial, s.l. - the legal name of the company
(sic) idea y creación editorial - the full publisher name

They are legitimate credits and not considered duplicates.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/180125-assirimo-alvim was a typo, so I have corrected the book and marked the credit as a duplicate.

I'm guessing they are the same but I can't find anything on the internet about that company.

The one attribution with the earlier credit shows the name as One + One Studio.

Of the six books attributed to One Plus One Studio there is only one that has an image showing the credit: https://www.bookogs.com/book/44430-fast-times-at-ridgemont-high which confirms it is printed that way.

I wouldn't feel comfortable merging the two just based on the name. If someone can find some information on the company that might help.

I've found one plus one hints:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?26763
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/tafuri-nancy-1946

both referring to "One plus One Studio" founded by Tom (Thomas) and Nancy Tafuri in 1971.

That's a start. Now if we can link that studio to Advice to a Young Scientist the job is complete.

Unfortunately, that name is not unique as I see someone founded a design studio in California by that name in 2011: http://oneplusonedesign.ca/studio/

There is a bright side. I have used your research to complete the profile for https://www.bookogs.com/credit/44434-one-plus-one-studio

What about One plus One's founder Thomas 'Tom' Tafuri, duplicate or alias?
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/80942-tom-tafuri
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/478529-thomas-tafuri

Good catch. I have treated Thomas Tafuri as a NV of Tom Tafuri. Marked the later credit as a duplicate. Added a short profile for Tom Tafuri along with the Discogs link. Corrected the Bookogs link on Discogs.

Thanks, that's what I call all-round service!

We have three credits for Workman:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23766-workman-publishing
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34370-workman-publishing-company
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23767-workman-publishing-company-inc

Should they be merged and CNVs used, or is there a reason that I'm missing to keep them separate?

Re Workman. There could be some overlap between the first two, although if they are credited in this particular way then there is possibly an argument for having the two credits. The third is a legal entity and is definitely a separate credit.

I should have investigated further before commenting.

Workman Publishing is being used predominantly for the roles of Imprint and Publisher.

Workman Publishing Company is being used almost exclusively for the role Distributed by/Director of Distribution.

This might be an indication that there is a reason for the split.

I was in the process of marking the latter as a duplicate and I noticed that the details were gradually disappearing. I have marked it as a duplicate.

If you create a Credit and find that it is a duplicate, or for some reason decide it is not required, then simply retitle it as Duplicate. The Credit will be reused for something else at some stage by one of the users that recycle duplicates. You may wish to stop following it as you will continue to receive notifications each time it is edited.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/292273-the-literary-executors-of-the-estate-of-h-g-wells - doesn't use punctuation for his initials
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/517631-literary-executors-of-the-estate-of-h-g-wells - 1 attribution
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/484867-the-executors-of-the-estate-of-the-late-h-g-wells - 1 attribution
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/108762-executors-of-the-estate-of-h-g-wells 5 attributions
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/435616-the-estate-of-the-late-h-g-wells - 1 attribution

They all basically mean the same thing. I would keep 108762 (the most attributions and the earliest credit in the database) and NV everything else to it. All of the others could be marked as duplicates.

The first one only has just the 1 attribution as well.

Not a problem, I have marked the latter as a duplicate. If you ever create a credit that you don't want, simply retitle it as Duplicate and the credit will be recycled by another user at some stage. You might wish to stop following it, otherwise you will receive notifications each time that the credit is edited.

Super sorry i made a duplicate The X Files by mistake.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/528713-x-files incorrect
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/137472-the-x-files correct

I just did the profile for Friesens, a printing company with an interesting history. Thankfully they have a very detailed timeline on their website:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/252438-friesens

We also have the following credits in the database:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/113807-friesen-printers
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/35011-friesens-corp
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/125411-d-w-friesen-sons-ltd

The company has been known as Friesens since 1976, so I'm thinking we should change the Printed by credits on books linked to the above 3 credits to Friesens and add CNVs. What do you think?

D.W. Friesen & Sons Ltd. should definately by kept, as it was the official name of the company. The profile could be added on that entry too, including a hyperlink to Friesens.
Not sure about the Printers and the Corp. credits, but at least the Printers version seems to be customary.

Friesens - (plural) seems to be standard company name, so keep
Friesens Corporation - seems to be official company name (see website), so keep
D.W. Friesen & Sons - previous company name? Keep.

The anomaly seems to be Friesen Printers which doesn't use the plural version of the name (except the book I added which was Friesens Printers so I added it as CNV). The books under this name were printed from 1978 to 2013 (so far) so its not just from a specific era.

I've taken care of the Camilo Castilo Branco and C.H. Becksche Buchdruckerei - but not sure what to do with Mano Negra. Should I merge to the older entry as usual, or should I use the entry with the profile and more books?

Matt Taibi & Yevgeny Raitzes repurposed as well.

Should I merge to the older entry as usual, or should I use the entry with the profile and more books?

Nobody would blame anyone for being pragmatic here. The discogs rules are sometimes quite stupid. You have an old release with wrong info, but it has to be the one to stay. Just use the better one ;-)

Just asking, do you have the magic ability to erase credit pages?

Just asking, do you have the magic ability to erase credit pages?

If so, the empty "Blue Note" page can be removed. All entries have been moved to the "Blue Note Records" page. I wonder why empty pages do not remove automatically. Would help a lot.

Just asking, do you have the magic ability to erase credit pages?

No, I don't. Unfortunately. :D

Anyone can merge these, and then rename the duplicate to be someone (or something) else, or rename it "Duplicate" when someone else can reuse it.

We've been doing it for as long as we've had the rename function. I'm not sure if you were around in the beginning, but there was a huge bug that created hundreds (if not thousands) of duplicates, and the rename function really helped cleaning that up.

The downside is that some users are really particular about their contributions. I had a user got mad at me when I renamed an entry they had contributed, as it still shows as their contribution. After that I've been a little bit wary of touching duplicates that are contributed by someone else.

I'm not sure if you were around in the beginning

Yes I was, but I left because there were no "About" and "work" fields, I must have missed that bug, though. Doesn't make me sad ;-)

rename the duplicate to be someone (or something) else, or rename it "Duplicate" when someone else can reuse it.

I see, that's the pragmatic approach if the best solution is not available, fine ;-)

We do what we can with the tools we are given. :-)

Most likely Christoph Bremer. He is mentioned as an author of a book about football and fans. Would fit

UK printers:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/56371-alden-press
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19227-the-alden-press
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19461-the-alden-press-ltd

I'd opt for keeping The Alden Press as most entries and that's what it says on the side of the building in the first link.

Re: Rainbow - the books show that the "Pocket" and "Pocketboek" variants also exist. Their website only says "Rainbow". Could you (or someone) confirm whether the pocketboeken/pocketboek/pocket part of the series name or not, and/or why "Pocketboeken" is the correct option?

Re: Alden Press/The Alden Press - The Alden Press sounds fine to me.

In most (modern) Rainbow pocket books it says ”Rainbow pocketboeken”.
The others are also used, but pocketboek and pocket are the singular forms. Since the series consists of more issues than one, I think the plural form would be preferable. With the others as variants.

Some Dutch publisher are not very consistent with using one ”name” for their series over time. This is one of them.

Ok, so it's a plural vs singular case. There are plenty of them in English too (for example Ace Books vs An Ace Book). I remember there being a discussion about at least Little Golden Books where the plural form was kept. So I'd think Rainbow pocketboeken would be ok then.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/28937-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/154776-poligrafkombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/41451-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/148148-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-iakuba-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/285557-minskii-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/204130-poligrafkombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/35570-minskoe-proizvodstvennoe-poligraficheskoe-obedinenie-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29213-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-goskomizdata-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/27785-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/123259-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/91811-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-ppp-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/110773-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/252155-poligrafkombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/148197-poligrafkombinat-im-iakuba-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/197081-minskii-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-iakuba-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/102563-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligraficheskii-kombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/455141-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/382830-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-po-pechati-soveta-ministrov-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/102693-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29210-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-belorusskoi-ssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/28980-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli?decades=1840
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/216366-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-komiteta-po-pechati-pri-sovete-ministrov-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/227489-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-belorusskoi-ssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/449520-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati

Merge all the above, as it's the same printing house. Differences in titles are abbreviations, word order, jurisdiction. I propose the following sorting. This one newly merged printing house (proposed name Полиграфический комбинат имения Якуба Коласа) should be used only for bookы before 2000's. For later editions it should be used
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/51919-respublikanskoe-unitarnoe-predpriiatie-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa if it's stated so, or
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/111053-oao-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
Plus the https://www.bookogs.com/credit/91778-otkrytoe-aktsionernoe-obshchestvo-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa should be merge with the previous one (https://www.bookogs.com/credit/111053-oao-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa)
History of the house: http://poligraph.by/about/

nickist420 wrote:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/28937-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/154776-poligrafkombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/41451-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/148148-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-iakuba-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/285557-minskii-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/204130-poligrafkombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/35570-minskoe-proizvodstvennoe-poligraficheskoe-obedinenie-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29213-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-goskomizdata-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/27785-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/123259-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/91811-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligrafkombinat-ppp-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/110773-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/252155-poligrafkombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/148197-poligrafkombinat-im-iakuba-kolasa-glavizdata-ministerstva-kultury-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/197081-minskii-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-iakuba-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/102563-minskii-ordena-trudovogo-krasnogo-znameni-poligraficheskii-kombinat-mppo-im-ia-kolasa
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/455141-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/382830-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-po-pechati-soveta-ministrov-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/102693-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29210-poligraficheskii-kombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-belorusskoi-ssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/28980-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli?decades=1840
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/216366-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-komiteta-po-pechati-pri-sovete-ministrov-bssr
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/227489-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-belorusskoi-ssr-po-delam-izdatelstv-poligrafii-i-knizhnoi-torgovli
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/449520-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa-gosudarstvennogo-komiteta-soveta-ministrov-bssr-po-pechati

Merge all the above, as it's the same printing house. Differences in titles are abbreviations, word order, jurisdiction. I propose the following sorting. This one newly merged printing house (proposed name Полиграфический комбинат имения Якуба Коласа) should be used only for bookы before 2000's. For later editions it should be used
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/51919-respublikanskoe-unitarnoe-predpriiatie-poligraficheskii-kombinat-imeni-ia-kolasa if it's stated so, or
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/111053-oao-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa
Plus the https://www.bookogs.com/credit/91778-otkrytoe-aktsionernoe-obshchestvo-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa should be merge with the previous one (https://www.bookogs.com/credit/111053-oao-poligrafkombinat-im-ia-kolasa)
History of the house: http://poligraph.by/about/

Now

Mass changes without consencus

Why is all this necessary?

Because there are too many duplicates of this printing house and of the others. Please stop creating duplicates, separate entries with same name. Abbreviations shouldn't be regarded as foundation for a separate entry (полиграфкомбинат - полиграфический комбинат)

Because there are too many duplicates of this printing house and of the others. Please stop creating duplicates, separate entries with same name. Abbreviations shouldn't be regarded as foundation for a separate entry (полиграфкомбинат - полиграфический комбинат)

We have two credits for the city of Rome:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/498512-roma
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/487372-rome-2

I think only one is needed, but not sure which one to go with - the Italian name or the English name?

Regarding Rome or Roma, it seems a lot of Italian place names vary from original spelling to anglicised one (Torino, Milano etc). Personally I go with the anglicised version but maybe a further discussion needed.

Sorry can't help with Russian.

Personally I go with the anglicised version but maybe a further discussion needed.

As it is strictly a subject, I'm leaning towards the anglicised version as well. That is purely because of usability issues. "Roma" and "Rome" are very close to each other, but for example "Finland" and "Suomi" are not...

Correct:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/32321-glidrose-productions-ltd
Duplicate:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/583984-glidrose-productions-ltd
Incorrect:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/213585-gildrose-productions-ltd
this is a somewhat common typo listed on publications that shouldn't require an own entry but should simply be a name variation of the first one

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/38255-james-marsh
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/509400-james-marsh-2

Same chap, artist/illustrator. https://jamesmarsh.com/bio-info/

Q.
If the book containing James Marsh (2) is edited to James Marsh, rendering James Marsh (2) blank, does the database automatically remove null entries? And, should one do this if confidence is high for an entry e.g. James Marsh & also Harry Shapiro above?

I've taken care of Harry Shapiro and James Marsh.

The database does not automatically remove null entries. We usually either 1) rename to be someone/something else, or 2) rename to "Duplicate" when someone else can "reuse" them for a new credit.

We have basically a constant pool of "duplicates":
https://www.bookogs.com/search?q=Duplicate

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/482686-v-s-pritchett
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/54135-v-s-pritchett

I suspect there'll be a few like this - V.S. vs V. S.
is there a convention for spacing? Thanks.

is there a convention for spacing?

No, there isn't. The real problem is the search in the credit field, it should be improved so that when you enter "V.S. Pritchett" or "VS Pritchett", it finds "V. S. Pritchett" (for example). Currently you need to match the spelling exactly for the system to find the correct entry.

When it comes to merging these, we usually merge to the entry that was created first, but also have taken into account what the easiest/most sensible option. For example, if the later entry has a lot more books and a profile while the earlier has only a couple of books and no profile, it's ok to merge to the later entry.

I do now know wether this one's been mentioned already but there it goes:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23948-planeta
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23950-editorial-planeta-s-a
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34598-editorial-planeta-s-a

They're all the same company. Last two should be removed and only the first one should stay. I suppose what should be done when encountering a different name for the same company is adding a variation instead of submitting a whole new credit. That won't help to keep the database organised, plus it's pretty clear it is the same company in this case

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/36620-unigraf-s-a
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/166250-unigraf-s-l

There does be a little variation here. 'S.A.' and 'S.L.' stand for the kind of legal form the company is in Spain ('anonimous', 'limited'...), but both of them should be merged into the same credit, called 'Unigraf'. S.A. and S.L. extensions may be added as a variation.

Here's an example of the variations: https://www.bookogs.com/book/637894-el-asesinato-de-socrates

music1man_eric wrote:

https://www.bookogs.com/book/546502-guitar-one-july-2006
https://www.bookogs.com/book/571167-guitar-one-july-2006

Magazine Guitar One (July 2006),
they are the same to me

They've got different barcodes.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/438282-the-toy-dolls
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/452733-toy-dolls

The Toy Dolls was the first entry and the version they now use, but Toy Dolls has more entries on Discogs. Any views?

I'd go with The Toy Dolls - I'm happy to edit if no objections?

westpier wrote:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/438282-the-toy-dolls
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/452733-toy-dolls

The Toy Dolls was the first entry and the version they now use, but Toy Dolls has more entries on Discogs. Any views?

I'd go with The Toy Dolls - I'm happy to edit if no objections?

westpier wrote:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/438282-the-toy-dolls
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/452733-toy-dolls

The Toy Dolls was the first entry and the version they now use, but Toy Dolls has more entries on Discogs. Any views?

I've no objection, it can easily be changed.

A typo which can easily be corrected ;)

Poganina, I did the Bowie edit above, but I wouldn't touch that one. Maybe if you are knowledgeable, you can correct the duplicate author by yourself and enter the correct ANV.

Then there's no sense in listing dupes here and i should connect what i can to one credit and leave remaining dupe credits entries orphaned?

someone else will use it for a future submission

Sorry but i just have to say that encouraging this practice is plain wrong. You never know where the reused page was hyperlinked from.

The proper merge operation should hide the dupe page forever, and put redirection from it to the original page forever.

But if the dupe page gets reused under irrelevant name then anyone following a 'this guy' or 'this book' hyperlink from elsewhere doesn't even have a way to know they're now seeing the page actually mentioned. (Any text in page's address that's after its unique number is ignored when this website resolves hyperlinks (as i guess).)

The hyperlink issue is known, but rather small issue at the moment.

On the other hand, we have no redirection function, or a merge function.

Just FYI, this practice was started years ago when the system had a bug that created thousands of duplicates, so it's not something new and is still considered a temporary solution. Things just happen slowly here.

While there has been very little problems, I'm aware that this is mostly because:
- the duplicates are usually misspellings
- they are usually weeded very early on
- creating hyperlinks in the database is not very easy
- the database is still relatively small

When the database grows, things might change, and then this practice will most likely get reviewed, and hopefully eventually completely abolished. But for now, I think it's the best option we've got, especially since there's no staff involvement needed. It is definitely better than leave the empty entries orphaned in the database.

It is definitely better than leave the empty entries orphaned in the database.

I'm not convinced, as a script to get rid (or flag for manual review) of all old enough orphans is a simple anytime solution, needed anyway for orphaned credits that are not duplicates. After deletion, a 404 page in their place will be less confusing than some random page. And adding now the flag 'duplicate' to their title will mark them for manual fix once the proper merging tool is finally up.

a script to get rid (or flag for manual review) of all old enough orphans is a simple anytime solution, needed anyway for orphaned credits that are not duplicates.

https://www.bookogs.com/forum/626235-works-a-year-on-works-with-most-linked-books#post-5

Like I said, things happen slowly here. Patience.

^^ if merged then the duplicate can be recreated very soon. Untill there's a proper merge with redirection to main profile whenever any of the linked aliases is used, i vote for keeping all valid naming variations on their own profiles. I actually tried and linked some prhinting house profiles manually as a temporary solution like here.

in fact I merged some of them using name variations, because it's a mess in Russian segment. But the amount is so high and I decided to wait for nv on the main pages.

DarkStar1951 wrote:

J.-H. Rosny aîné and J. H. Rosny Aine

Have now removed J. H. Rosny Aine.

I fixed that one Darkstar.This one is now a duplicate
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/675526-john-gribbin

Supernaut1970 wrote:

I fixed that one Darkstar.This one is now a duplicate
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/675526-john-gribbin

So to remove a double credit, just rename the double credit 'duplicate' and link the double credit (author, publisher, etc.) to the remaining correct link?
Does that need approval or can anyone correct a double entry?

Entries that are clearly just mistakes can be corrected by anyone without any discussion.

Yes, thats the way to do it DarkStar. Just leave a small explanation in the submission history so the orginal submitter understands why it's been changed. If something is not so obvious like two author credits with tons of books each then it would be a good idea to dicuss in the forums.

Supernaut1970 wrote:

Yes, thats the way to do it DarkStar. Just leave a small explanation in the submission history so the orginal submitter understands why it's been changed. If something is not so obvious like two author credits with tons of books each then it would be a good idea to dicuss in the forums.

If I add a book that requires a new credit, can I go to a 'Duplicate' make changes and use that credit as my new credit or will that be a problem for the dB. I'm thinking that may be a way to shrink the dB by getting rid of all the 'duplicate' credits

DarkStar1951 wrote:

If I add a book that requires a new credit, can I go to a 'Duplicate' make changes and use that credit as my new credit or will that be a problem for the dB. I'm thinking that may be a way to shrink the dB by getting rid of all the 'duplicate' credits

That's what I usually do. Before I add a book I check if all the relevant credits are already in place and if any need to be added, find a duplicate and amend to suit. This seems common practice as the number of duplicate credits at any time is often only in single figures.

Cyril M. Kornbluth and C. M. Kornbluth
5 and 49 items. I'm not sure which name to use.

Use C. M. Kornbluth. It has a lot more items, and is a lot earlier entry than the Cyril M. Kornbluth one.

If it's seen that Cyril M. Kornbluth would be a better primary name, we can always rename it.

I've merged them, none of the five entries under Cyril M. actually said that, the ones with images all showed C. M.

auboisdormant wrote:

If it's seen that Cyril M. Kornbluth would be a better primary name, we can always rename it.

In general if you rename a credit, won't ANV have to be applied to some of the submissions as the credit will appear as the renamed version in all submissions?

In general if you rename a credit, won't ANV have to be applied to some of the submissions as the credit will appear as the renamed version in all submissions?

Yeah. The more entries the page has, the more tedious the process is. You also have to make sure all the links to the profile work (Ogs links, aliases, relatives etc.)

Those two metal credits are the same thing. It might be a good idea to rename one of them something like New Wave of British HeaVy Metal (NWOBHM) or NWOBHM (New Wave of British Heavy Metal) The abbreviation is probably most popular among the fans of Heavy Metal.

Basically the same subject, moving is easy but which name would be best? Maybe amend to Third Reich (Nazi Germany) or Nazi Germany (Third Reich)?

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/229348-third-reich
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/639902-nazi-germany

This one I'm not so sure of but both surely refer to the NSDAP?
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/520342-nazi-party
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/230428-nazism

Nazi Germany and Third Reich are equal, Nazi Party and Nazism are not, as nazism can also be promoted by other parties or individuals.

Off-topic-alert:
Why has this "denglish" (half DEutsch, half eNGLISH) phrase of Third Reich become a regular label, as a full translation would say Third Empire?

I agree Third Reich could be merged to Nazi Germany which is a better description. Nazi Party and Nazism are two different subjects.

I would suggest Third Reich was a term popularized by the media at the time. Most English speakers would be unfamiliar with the word Drittes.

How does Bookogs list books about the first and second 'Reich'? Make the choice consist with those credits.

Attempted to combine
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/377221-richard-p-feynman
and
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/137562-richard-feynman

but was thwarted by
https://www.bookogs.com/book/137561-lumiere-et-matiere
which contains an error in that no format is listed. Database will not allow changes unless error is corrected. I don't own the book so don't know the format. From the website livres-anciens-neufs, it appears to be a softcover but I don't know if its the same book listed here.
Suggestions?
I have moved 6 other books from 'Richard Feynman' to 'Richard P. Feynman'

You can use the "Unknown" option in the Format list. It was added specifically for cases like this.

thethrowback wrote:

I agree Third Reich could be merged to Nazi Germany which is a better description. Nazi Party and Nazism are two different subjects.

I would suggest Third Reich was a term popularized by the media at the time. Most English speakers would be unfamiliar with the word Drittes.

Be easier to rename Third Reich as Nazi Germany and move the credits over.

I guess my point with Nazism is I'm not sure which, if any, of the books belong under Nazism rather than the Nazi Party. ie. how should it be explained, just seems a bit of a grey area between the two.

auboisdormant wrote:

You can use the "Unknown" option in the Format list. It was added specifically for cases like this.

Did not see that.
Thanks

Just found a book that has only the title entered:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/271769-tales-of-mystery-and-imagination

That is the only contribution by the user, who doesn't seem to have logged in after their contribution.

I was about to mark it as a duplicate since it's impossible to tell which edition it is, but I guess there is a possibility they could come back and update it... Any opinions?

just seems a bit of a grey area between the two

Certainly that is true, but they are two different subjects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Maybe Nazi Party could be merged to Nazi Germany as the two are inextricably linked, whereas the doctrine of Nazism still exists on the fringes of politics.

https://www.bookogs.com/book/271769-tales-of-mystery-and-imagination

I would mark it as duplicate as it only consists of a title. The user was last seen on Bookogs 687 days ago: https://www.bookogs.com/users/kilncraft and their Discogs page https://www.discogs.com/user/KilnCraft shows no actvity.

Hi nothinger, in regards to

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23087-wydawnictwo-ksiazka-i-wiedza
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/555408-ksiazka-i-wiedza

I don't know what to make of this as https://www.bookogs.com/book/504742-wybor-pism definitely lists the publisher as Książka i Wiedza.

All of the books credited to Wydawnictwo Książka I Wiedza only have cover images, but two books https://www.bookogs.com/book/14586-general-samsonow-stuletnie-klamstwo and https://www.bookogs.com/book/12629-opowiadania have Książka i Wiedza printed on the covers.

It could be that Wydawnictwo Książka I Wiedza is the publisher and Książka i Wiedza is an imprint of the publisher.

The Wiki page is titled Książka i Wiedza https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksi%C4%85%C5%BCka_i_Wiedza

Maybe this is something that can be sorted by Polish speakers.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/397470-dr-bob-jones
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/618003-bob-jones-3

Dr. Bob Jones has only 2 entries compared to 11 for Bob Jones but on Discogs Dr. Bob Jones has the most credits (plus variations on the 'Dr').

I think this is a case where Dr. Bob Jones should be used. That's the name the artist is recognized by, similiar to Dr. Hook and Dr. Demento. Also, his real name could be added go the Bookogs profile since it appears on the Discogs profile.

+1

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/564947-nele-kruger
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/39043-nele-kruger (dupe)

The first entry should be kept and the later one be the dupe!

German printers based in Radolfzell, in business for over 60 years:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/243648-druckerei-uhl (6 entries mid 1990s-2010s)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/49656-druckerei-uhl-2 (1 entry, 2012, dupe of above?)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23314-druckerei-ernst-uhl (2 entries, 1988 & 1990)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/137540-druckerei-uhl-gmbh-co (2 entries, 2006 & 2010)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/337183-druckerei-ernst-uhl-gmbh-co (1 entry, 1987)

So by the looks of it they shortened their name, removing 'Ernst' some time in the 1990s.

The first 2 should be merged at least unless I've missed something.
https://www.druckerei-uhl.de/kontakt/kontaktformular/

nickist420 wrote:

https://www.bookogs.com/book/17627-melochi-zhizni-russkaia-satira-i-iumor-vtoroi-poloviny-xix-nachala-xx-v
https://www.bookogs.com/book/198992-melochi-zhizni-russkaia-satira-i-iumor-vtoroi-poloviny-xix-nachala-xx-v
Should be merged, as these are identical books

What do the 3-й завод / 6-й завод mean?
(Similar difference with the other books)

auboisdormant wrote:

What do the 3-й завод / 6-й завод mean?
(Similar difference with the other books)

This is maybe an analogue of print run. It means that part of the overall edition of the book, which is due to the tech. restrictions (durability of printing forms, paper stocks, printing resources, etc.) must be produced in batches with a time gap or at the same time, but at different printing enterprises.
In theory books can be different, but there is no obvious indication of that

Impression differences are often important to book collectors, which is why I've at least submitted different impressions separately. I'm not sure if there's an overall agreement about it, but I've seen others do it too.

I'm not familiar with the details of Russian printing practices, so maybe wait for more opinions. :)

The first entry should be kept and the later one be the dupe!

Normally that would be the case, but the earlier Credit was incorrectly spelt "Nele Kruger", whereas the later Credit was correctly spelt "Nele Krüger".

Admittedly the earlier entry could have been retitled, but Neotrinston had already transferred the Book https://www.bookogs.com/book/9877-marilyn-by-magnum which generated Nele Kruger to the later Credit Nele Krüger.

thethrowback wrote:

The first entry should be kept and the later one be the dupe!

Normally that would be the case, but the earlier Credit was incorrectly spelt "Nele Kruger", whereas the later Credit was correctly spelt "Nele Krüger".

It must be assumed that the wrong spelling in this form was taken from the book, so the entry itself would be correct per se. Is not serious in this particular case, but should be considered for future duplicates.

I did discover some information about her https://www.f6s.com/nelekrger which I added to her profile: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/564947-nele-kruger

All four books have some form of credit for Prestel Verlag and Nele Krüger worked for that company as a Production Manager.

The book that generated Nele Kruger does not have images that show the credits, whether her name is printed that way is unknown. However, I did add an NV in case her name is actually printed that way.

Nele Kruger (with one attribution) was definitely a duplicate of Nele Krüger (with three attributions).

Sure I've mentioned this one before but i guess not.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/405932-bangles 4 entries
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/463093-the-bangles 13 entries

Bangles appears to be used of 2/3 of their releases and is the name Discogs uses (and is the entry i added) but there again I've always referred to them as The Bangles.

Based on the releases and official websites both variations are used, so neither is really incorrect...

Since Bangles was created first, maybe we should go with that. I'm not sure if it matters whether it matches with the Discogs entry or not, but it doesn't hurt?

Somehow I myself created duplicate credit, I hate when this happens:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/693673-edyta-brodawka
https://books.discogs.com/credit/685985-edyta-brodawka

nothinger I see westpier has corrected this duplicate. If you create a Credit and you find that it is not needed for whatever reason, simply retitle the Credit as 'Duplicate' and it will be recycled by another user at some stage. Remember to remove any details from the Profile and disable any images if applicable. You may also wish to stop Following the Credit otherwise you will receive notifications each time it is edited.

The Credit will always remain in your Submission list regardless of its new title as you generated it.

I meant to comment that Lao Tze might need a title change as not one book uses that spelling: https://books.discogs.com/credit/117989-lao-tze

https://books.discogs.com/credit/107489-david-mattingly
https://books.discogs.com/credit/185905-david-b-mattingly

The first generated Credit is usually retained, but as David Mattingly has 5 attributions and David B. Mattingly has 13, clearly the latter is the better option. David Mattingly can be NV'd to David B. Mattingly.

Re: Seuil/Éditions du Seuil

Seuil and Éditions du Seuil should both be kept.

I assume someone transferred the books that credited https://books.discogs.com/credit/551920-editions-du-seuil as there were no attributions when I checked. I have marked it as a duplicate.

What about duplicated books?
https://books.discogs.com/book/711925-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie
This was just added, I see no difference to one already in database:
https://books.discogs.com/book/682404-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie

Re: Lao Tze

It is probably not the best primary name as the books that use it are quite scarce. (There are some but none are in the database)

While a lot of English-language books still use the Wade-Giles romanization "Lao Tzu", it seems that the pinyin "Laozi" is now the preferred romanization in multiple languages, including English.

Re: Seuil/Éditions du Seuil

As far as I can see both are valid. The French company registry has "Éditions du Seuil" listed, with "Le Seuil" listed as a trade name ("nom commercial"). In addition, "Seuil" is a registered trademark of Éditions du Seuil.

Trade names and trademarks have been treated as imprints in a lot of cases, separated from the company/companies using the trade name.

I agree Laozi is probably the best option. I will make the change.

What about duplicated books?
https://books.discogs.com/book/711925-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie
This was just added, I see no difference to one already in database:
https://books.discogs.com/book/682404-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie

I have left a comment in the History of the later submission. Hopefully, the OS will respond.

thethrowback wrote:

What about duplicated books?
https://books.discogs.com/book/711925-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie
This was just added, I see no difference to one already in database:
https://books.discogs.com/book/682404-pamietnik-znaleziony-w-wannie

I have left a comment in the History of the later submission. Hopefully, the OS will respond.

Thanks, if it fails, I'll talk to the guy myself, I'm actually happy he helps with building collection of polish Lem books. :)

thethrowback wrote:

nothinger I see westpier has corrected this duplicate. If you create a Credit and you find that it is not needed for whatever reason, simply retitle the Credit as 'Duplicate' and it will be recycled by another user at some stage. Remember to remove any details from the Profile and disable any images if applicable. You may also wish to stop Following the Credit otherwise you will receive notifications each time it is edited.

The Credit will always remain in your Submission list regardless of its new title as you generated it.

Also thanks for that, will keep that in mind.

On the copyright page:
"Baen Publishing Enterprises"
and
"A Baen Books Original"

https://books.discogs.com/credit/88980-baen-publishing-enterprises
https://books.discogs.com/credit/65382-baen-books

Should they be combined or is Baen Books an imprint of Baen Publishing Enterprises"?

Based on the images for example here, I'd keep them separate.

I'm suspecting Baen Books and Baen are trade names, and not really imprints, but it seems that a lot of users like to enter these separately, even in the cases of small publishers that have only a single trade name.

Looking at that example, I guess from using Discogs I've often used trading names as an imprint ie. the way a record company has a different 'label' name.

auboisdormant wrote:

Based on the images for example here, I'd keep them separate.

I'm suspecting Baen Books and Baen are trade names, and not really imprints, but it seems that a lot of users like to enter these separately, even in the cases of small publishers that have only a single trade name.

In your example, the credit for publisher is "Baen Books" but on the copyright page image it states "Baen Publishing Enterprises". That is how my Baen books are listed. So should the publisher be credited as "Baen Publishing Enterprises" or "Baen Books"? or both?
PublishersArchive.com lists "Baen Publishing Enterprises" as the publisher with a link to "Baen Books".
I'm soooo confused!!!

So should the publisher be credited as "Baen Publishing Enterprises" or "Baen Books"? or both?

I think (others please correct me if I'm wrong) most of the time the trade name is treated as an imprint, so you can enter both:

Imprint: Baen Books
Publisher: Baen Publishing Enterprises

I wouldn't try to think too much about it, trying to draw some kind of line between trade names, imprints, publishers, publisher series, etc. can drive you mad... Just do your best. :-)

auboisdormant wrote:

I think (others please correct me if I'm wrong) most of the time the trade name is treated as an imprint, so you can enter both:

Imprint: Baen Books
Publisher: Baen Publishing Enterprises

Yeah, that was my thought.

I wouldn't try to think too much about it, trying to draw some kind of line between trade names, imprints, publishers, publisher series, etc. can drive you mad... Just do your best. :-)

I just like to make sense of what I do. ;-)

I just like to make sense of what I do. ;-)

Don't we all... :-)

https://books.discogs.com/credit/22134-arena
https://books.discogs.com/credit/713053-arena

The second one was accidentially created during my submission.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/713053-arena marked as duplicate

It is a regular occurence at present because the system is so slow at returning a list of possible duplicates that users (new and old) just assume that the Credit doesn't exist and create a new one.

thethrowback wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/713053-arena marked as duplicate

It is a regular occurence at present because the system is so slow at returning a list of possible duplicates that users (new and old) just assume that the Credit doesn't exist and create a new one.

Yeah, I've created a few duplicates because of that. Now if I think a credit should already be in the system, I'll open a new tab and do a search.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/72750-friedrich-von-schiller
https://books.discogs.com/credit/305248-friedrich-schiller

Bringing this here after all since I'm not sure which one to keep. I'd keep Schiller since it seems to be the more relevant variant and has more books/works, but I know von Schiller is an earlier entry.

auboisdormant wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/72750-friedrich-von-schiller
https://books.discogs.com/credit/305248-friedrich-schiller

Bringing this here after all since I'm not sure which one to keep. I'd keep Schiller since it seems to be the more relevant variant and has more books/works, but I know von Schiller is an earlier entry.

Yes, Friedrich Schiller is more popular plus the main name given on the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller

Though, as it seems frequently used, it might be worth keeping the Friedrich von Schiller entry with 'Do Not Use' and a hyperlink to Friedrich Schiller instead.

My only concern is that those entries don't really work because users are still able to use them. For example:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/21205-arbeiderspers

But if others think it's worth the try, I have nothing against that.

auboisdormant wrote:

My only concern is that those entries don't really work because users are still able to use them. For example:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/21205-arbeiderspers

But if others think it's worth the try, I have nothing against that.

I've seen that with other entries as, I guess, users don't know what the "!" means. I updated the image with a 'Do Not Use' message below it, hopefully more effective.

And

https://books.discogs.com/credit/147010-n-v-de-arbeiderspers (1 entry, 3 years old)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/539866-n-v-de-arbeiderspers (1 entry, 11 months old)

I'm not up with German publishers and when they use upper / lower case.

Dutch! Sorry.

I've seen that with other entries as, I guess, users don't know what the "!" means. I updated the image with a 'Do Not Use' message below it, hopefully more effective.

Let's hope so, I guess only time will tell. I'm suspecting some users are just not paying attention to images, and/or are just blindly copy-pasting credits from other submissions.

I just don't want Bookogs to turn into a database of duplicate credits like one of the other sites...

More here:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/263217-r-r-clark-limited (13 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/447293-r-r-clark-ltd (12 entries)

I'd opt for using the first one, more accurate.

Marked https://books.discogs.com/credit/447293-r-r-clark-ltd as duplicate (in gratitude for the Molière edit)

I've taken care of the Émile Zola duplicate.

Not really sure if this is intentional, as the first one links to the other, but these should probably be merged into one.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/66484-brom
https://books.discogs.com/credit/91050-gerald-brom

meanisak wrote:

Not really sure if this is intentional, as the first one links to the other, but these should probably be merged into one.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/66484-brom
https://books.discogs.com/credit/91050-gerald-brom

There are some credits that appear like this. It's generally up to user consensus to decide whether both should be kept. Admittedly it can be confusing, but, for example, I know the British music journalist Barry Miles was mainly just credited as 'Miles', hence:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/19277-miles
https://books.discogs.com/credit/19278-barry-miles

Though most credits seem to have been added to his full name!

In addition, in cases like the above if only one credit is used its worth keeping the other entry with the icon 'Do Not Use' as people will often try to add a new entry.

westpier wrote:

There are some credits that appear like this. It's generally up to user consensus to decide whether both should be kept. Admittedly it can be confusing, but, for example, I know the British music journalist Barry Miles was mainly just credited as 'Miles', hence:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/19277-miles
https://books.discogs.com/credit/19278-barry-miles

Though most credits seem to have been added to his full name!

Ok thanks, I thought such should be fixed with Credit Name Variations, similar to (Vinyl) Discogs, but if those name variations do not show up in Searches, I see why it would make sense to keep both for now.

Brom is generally known just by his last name, and he is most of the time credited just as Brom. Occasionally his full name appears as for example copyright holder, probably for legal reasons.

In Discogs cases like these are usually treated as aliases (=two different pages), one is a stage name and the other the real name, for example:
https://www.discogs.com/artist/8760-Madonna
https://www.discogs.com/artist/3424607-Madonna-Louise-Ciccone

Similar cases are not a rarity in Bookogs either, for example:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/25666-agatha-christie
https://books.discogs.com/credit/33050-agatha-christie-mallowan

I'm aware that Brom is probably not as known as Agatha Christie or Madonna is, but the same logic has been applied to smaller artists as well.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/23760-daw-books
https://books.discogs.com/credit/31374-daw-books-inc

My Daw books list "Daw Books, Inc." on the title page. Some state "A Daw Book" on the copyright page. I'm guessing the correct credit would be "Daw Books, Inc."?

In my opinion it's probably good to keep both - one of the trademark/imprint that appears often on the covers and spine, and one for the publishing company. At least for the time being as name variations are not displayed on the credit pages, and the search is what it is.

These are a bit of an undiscussed territory, and while for example HarperCollins is nothing more than a shorthand, and the books often have another imprint and an actual publishing company, it still exists. On the other hand it is good to have around as it's straightforward, but on the other hand there are many books under that entry that have incomplete publication information.

auboisdormant wrote:

In my opinion it's probably good to keep both - one of the trademark/imprint that appears often on the covers and spine, and one for the publishing company. At least for the time being as name variations are not displayed on the credit pages, and the search is what it is.

These are a bit of an undiscussed territory, and while for example HarperCollins is nothing more than a shorthand, and the books often have another imprint and an actual publishing company, it still exists. On the other hand it is good to have around as it's straightforward, but on the other hand there are many books under that entry that have incomplete publication information.

Can I use "Daw Books, Inc." as the publisher and "Daw Books" as an imprint?

Can I use "Daw Books, Inc." as the publisher and "Daw Books" as an imprint?

If that is the way they are credited by all means.

It might help if I elaborate on my previous comment.

For the publisher, I normally use the name credited on the colophon page (where the copyright details are usually listed), and this could be something like Daw Books, Inc., using your example. For the Imprint I use the name on the title page or the cover of the book, and that could be Daw Books.

To give another example: Penguin Group as the publisher, and Penguin Books or Penguin as the Imprint.

thethrowback wrote:

It might help if I elaborate on my previous comment.

For the publisher, I normally use the name credited on the colophon page (where the copyright details are usually listed), and this could be something like Daw Books, Inc., using your example. For the Imprint I use the name on the title page or the cover of the book, and that could be Daw Books.

To give another example: Penguin Group as the publisher, and Penguin Books or Penguin as the Imprint.

See colophon and title images in Can You Feel Anything When I Do This?

and colophon image in The Book of Philip K. Dick

DarkStar1951 wrote:

Can I use "Daw Books, Inc." as the publisher and "Daw Books" as an imprint?

If the book uses both variations, then by all means. If it only has either or, then I would just enter that one as the publisher.

There's no universal rule where to find imprints and publisher names, it depends on the era, location and the publisher. Also whether it's an actual imprint or a trade name makes a difference too.

Back in the days the publisher name was basically always on the title page, and some publishers still follow this today, meaning the imprint and/or trade name is usually found only on the covers and/or spine. But others do it in their own way.

DarkStar1951 in reference to the two books that you have queried:

"Can You Feel Anything When I Do This?": What you have done there seems fine to me. I notice that the location for the data is the opposite to what I normally encounter, i.e. publisher on title page and imprint on colophon page.

"The Book of Philip K. Dick": Using the images that you have uploaded, I can't see a credit for DAW Books, Inc., so if this entity is not shown anywhere in the book then it shouldn't be credited in your submission. You have the advantage of having a copy of the book, so that is something for you to determine.

I wouldn't stress about it as your submissions are of a high standard.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/714401-turnbull-spears marked as duplicate

They both had the same number of attributions, but 714401 was only created 2 weeks ago whereas 165196 was created ages ago. The usual policy is to keep the oldest Credit unless there is a strong bias towards one form of the name.

thethrowback wrote:

DarkStar1951 in reference to the two books that you have queried:

"Can You Feel Anything When I Do This?": What you have done there seems fine to me. I notice that the location for the data is the opposite to what I normally encounter, i.e. publisher on title page and imprint on colophon page.

"The Book of Philip K. Dick": Using the images that you have uploaded, I can't see a credit for DAW Books, Inc., so if this entity is not shown anywhere in the book then it shouldn't be credited in your submission. You have the advantage of having a copy of the book, so that is something for you to determine.

I wouldn't stress about it as your submissions are of a high standard.

Thank you!
I should have mentioned that the title page of all my DAW books resemble the one from "Can You Feel Anything When I Do This?" with a "DAW BOOKS, INC" at the bottom.
I guess I'll use DAW BOOKS, INC. as the publisher and DAW Books as an imprint. Thanks for your help.

Marked
https://books.discogs.com/book/719045-guitar-world-march-2008
https://books.discogs.com/book/719049-guitar-world-august-2008 as duplicates.

As you are the OS of both these submissions I assume that you were satisfied that the earlier submissions were exactly the same as your copies. You will note that there are a couple of details that I had to add to make the duplicate submission.

In time these duplicates will be recycled and retitled by another user (or you can do this). If you don't use them then I suggest that you uncheck 'Following' as each time they are edited you will receive a notification. These will remain in your collection as you generated them.

Conde Nast Publications Inc
Condé Nast Publications, Inc.
I had the first one as credits for my Analog submissions but changed them to the second because that's how they were printed. However, there are 2 more items listed that I do not own.

Condé Nast Publications " is the British wing of Condé Nast, the American media company." so I don't know where that leaves the credits here:
Conde Nast Publication
The Curiously Sinister Art Of Jim Flora shows "Condé Nast Publications" so I'm guessing at least that one shoul be changed

I think Condé Nast I should be kept because the 9th image of Bon Appétit (May 2013) shows "Condé Nast".

DarkStar1951 wrote:

Conde Nast Publications Inc
Condé Nast Publications, Inc.
I had the first one as credits for my Analog submissions but changed them to the second because that's how they were printed. However, there are 2 more items listed that I do not own.

Condé Nast Publications " is the British wing of Condé Nast, the American media company." so I don't know where that leaves the credits here:
Conde Nast Publication
The Curiously Sinister Art Of Jim Flora shows "Condé Nast Publications" so I'm guessing at least that one shoul be changed

I think Condé Nast I should be kept because the 9th image of Bon Appétit (May 2013) shows "Condé Nast".

Yes I'd keep:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/40196-conde-nast-publications

Part of the problem is that accent over the letter 'e'. I would also say keep:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/309985-conde-nast-publications-inc
However, there is also the version with 'The' at the start and some websites refer to it as such:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/284692-the-conde-nast-publications-inc
but less popular IMO

I have cleaned up the Condé Nast database.

All references to this company (Wikipedia, official website) list the name as Condé Nast (etc.).

I then found an image of a sign which shows the company name as "The Condé Nast Publications, Inc.": https://www.forbes.com/sites/dirksmillie/2019/04/17/conde-nast-the-launch-issue/#b65f4cb7d0a3

I had already NV'd credits for The Condé Nast Publications, Inc. to Condé Nast Publications, Inc. but maybe the former name is correct. If anyone has any objections then I will revert them.

Just need a hand merging two credits

Moving credits from:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/466072-hazel-watson-viney-limited (36 credits)

over to:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/26461-hazell-watson-viney-ltd (378 credits)

with ANV

Just need a hand merging two credits

Done. I'm glad it wasn't the other way round.

thethrowback wrote:

Just need a hand merging two credits

Done. I'm glad it wasn't the other way round.

Thank you!

The credit for 'The University Press' features a mix of credits for Oxford and Cambridge (and a couple I'm not sure but think they're Oxford).

https://books.discogs.com/credit/98851-the-university-press

The first credit was 'No Voice from the Hall' which doesn't seem to indicate which particular press, but as its by John Murray (Publishers) I think its Oxford.

It's a problem as I often see 'The University Press' as a credit, shall we put up a 'Do not Use' image for it with hyperlinks and move them to:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/20011-oxford-university-press
https://books.discogs.com/credit/20047-cambridge-university-press

There is also this one that needs moving:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/91619-university-press-cambridge

Are the UK publishers and their printing presses credited the same way, i.e. both can be credited as "Cambridge University Press"?

https://books.discogs.com/credit/91619-university-press-cambridge

Some of the credits there are for a printing press located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That "University Press" has probably very little to do with the Oxford and Cambridge University presses.

If the rest of the books belong under Cambridge University Press, then I'd suggest keeping that entry for the US printing press. (I would stay away from adding "Massachusetts" and/or "United States" to the name for the time being as the press seems to have been founded when the area was still a colony of England in the 1600s.)

auboisdormant wrote:

Are the UK publishers and their printing presses credited the same way, i.e. both can be credited as "Cambridge University Press"?

If the rest of the books belong under Cambridge University Press, then I'd suggest keeping that entry for the US printing press. (I would stay away from adding "Massachusetts" and/or "United States" to the name for the time being as the press seems to have been founded when the area was still a colony of England in the 1600s.)

Some publishers seem to credit their printing as a separate entity, eg. Blackie & Son, Ltd., Glasgow.

The Oxford University Press is difficult as it can be publishing, printing and distribution. It doesn't help that some credits say 'The University Press' and other 'University Press'.

However, if books say printed at Oxford University Press, there doesn't seem to be a need for a seprate printing credit as it will just confuse matters.

Do you mean keeping the same name 'The University Press'? As the name Massachusetts was in use during the colonial period.

westpier wrote:

Some publishers seem to credit their printing as a separate entity, eg. Blackie & Son, Ltd., Glasgow.

Yeah, on older books the printing press and the printing company are often credited separately. There was even a request to add "Printed At" to credits to make the distinction clearler, but no luck yet. I'm not even sure if the staff is alive anymore.

westpier wrote:

However, if books say printed at Oxford University Press, there doesn't seem to be a need for a seprate printing credit as it will just confuse matters.

That's true, and even in Discogs if the credit is the same for the label and the company, you use the same entry. But it needs to be exactly the same.

Would there be harm in keeping both, Oxford University Press and University Press, Oxford? Just enter what is printed on the book?

westpier wrote:

Do you mean keeping the same name 'The University Press'? As the name Massachusetts was in use during the colonial period.

Ok, I was maybe too brief. That was specifically about the University Press, Cambridge entry.

I meant that if that entry is not kept for the printing press of Cambridge University (which it was probably created for), then there's no reason to change the title, at least not before we have more information about the naming history of the US press.

Of course, if that entry is kept for the printing press of Cambridge University, then the US press needs to be moved, and probably would be good to include more in the names of both presses so that they aren't both named "University Press, Cambridge".

westpier wrote:

The University Press

I think it's probably good to try to get rid of the The University Press entry if possible.

But as not all books there have images, we might have to keep it as a "generic entry", with links to more accurate and exact entries. Something like this: Pulse Studios

I would like to see a 'Printed At' credit, as, for example, The Ballantyne Press always causes a furrowed brow.

I'm ok with keeping both entries, as looking at the entries by Steppenwolf it does seem to clearly indicate a difference which I hadn't spotted:
https://books.discogs.com/book/601634-anglo-saxon-england

So options are:

i) Change 'The University Press' to something like 'The University Press, Cambridge, Mass.'? Move ones that can be changed, contact OS for ones we're unsure of?

ii) Keep it as is, move ones that have existing credits. Add a new 'The University Press, Cambridge, Mass.'?

The only problem with option ii) is that it will always been the first and easiest route for submitters to choose, especially when the system is slow.

I hope I've read your suggestions right.

westpier wrote:

I'm ok with keeping both entries

I honestly think it's the easiest option.

To be sure we're on the same line, in the end we should have at least these, right?

Oxford University Press
University Press, Oxford

Cambridge University Press
University Press, Cambridge

westpier wrote:

ii) Keep it as is, move ones that have existing credits. Add a new 'The University Press, Cambridge, Mass.'?

That's what I would do with The University Press. And add some instructions and links to the profile, saying it should be only used if there's no location mentioned. Use it as a some sort of trash bin which can be cleared every now and then...

But since I'm not sure if there are any credits without a location, I'd be ok with emptying it out and adding a warning not to use it. If you have a stronger preference, just go with the option that you like better.

Nevertheless I wouldn't completely delete it or rename it as the profile can be used to guide users.

I think the US press will need a new entry. As most of those books have been submitted by me, I can update them and also look more into the history of the press. I started it already yesterday, so I might as well continue.

It seems that "University Press" name was introduced in 1802, so I'd name the US press "University Press, Cambridge, US". "Mass." is probably less familiar to people.

OK, thanks for your input, I'll have a look to see if there are any I can move or leave a message for OS.

Constantin Film according to the Wikipedia page is effectively two companies:

Constantin Film GmBH 1964-1977
Constantin Film 1977?-2009 (became a public company Constantin Film AG in 1999)

There are two credits:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/88110-constantin (this is the new company)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/88110-constantin (ANV of old company)

Is it worth having these two with separate dates or is that just confusing and better to merge them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Film

I think you lost track of the links. These are the Constantin Film variations currently in the database:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/61837-neue-constantin-film (keep)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/88110-constantin (dupe)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/120184-constantin-film (keep)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/487206-neue-constantin-film-gmbh-munchen (keep)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/718668-constantin-film-verleih-gmbh (keep)

If the Wiki is correct, then 718668 is close to the original name of the company: Constantin Filmverleih GmbH (founded in 1950 and renamed as Constantin Film GmbH in 1964). 120184 could be a version of the company name that existed from 1950 until 1977, or even later as 'Neue' is omitted from many company references.

61837 is the new name of the company established in 1979 after Constantin Film GmbH went bankrupt in 1977. The company seems to have operated in different localities so I would keep 487206.

88110 is a credit for a stills photo from Der rote Kreis (1960), so I have NV'd it to 120184.

I forgot to add the last part:

In 1999, it seems Neue Constantin Film was listed on the stockmarket with the name Constantin Film AG, so 120184 could also refer to this entity.

I think that's it.

Thanks, i only mentioned those two as I wanted to keep it simple! The other credits appeared valid.

I've found some other credits of the first Constantin, combined with another company and / or photographers. I take care of those over the weekend.

i only mentioned those two as I wanted to keep it simple

The two you cited had the same url, that's why I started to look at it more closely.

I take care of those over the weekend

BadMoon I reckon you are the right person for the job!

These two are the same person:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/455707-daniel-levitin
https://books.discogs.com/credit/530271-daniel-j-levitin

I'm not sure of the procedure here with regard to which entry to merge into.

The normal procedure is to use the earliest generated Credit, unless there is a bias to a later Credit.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/455707-daniel-levitin has 2 attributions
https://books.discogs.com/credit/530271-daniel-j-levitin has 4 attributions

According to Goodreads most of his books are credited to Daniel J. Leviten: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/81619.Daniel_J_Levitin

I have marked 455707 as a duplicate and NV'd these to the latter.

@thethrowback, thanks for merging the Daniel Levitin entries, I can now add my version of his book 'This Is Your Brain On Music'.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/56371-alden-press (6 entries, older entry)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/19227-the-alden-press (10 entries)

Personally I'd go for The Alden Press, that's how it is written on the building! Plus the limited company is also called that.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/19461-the-alden-press-ltd

However, judging from one image I did find under Alden Press it is sometimes credited without 'The', so maybe a 'Do Not Use' instead of a dupe?

The Alden Press is the correct name, it is the earliest generated credit (19227 vs 56371) and has the most attributions. I believe Alden Press is just a shorthand version and should be treated as a name variation. I see the company has gone bust: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3940658.update-printing-firm-hits-trouble/

thethrowback wrote:

The Alden Press is the correct name, it is the earliest generated credit (19227 vs 56371) and has the most attributions.

Didn't notice it being earlier, thanks for that.

Didn't notice this earlier, it credits typesetting at Alden Press, Northampton. The Alden Press was in Oxford.

https://books.discogs.com/book/56367-invisible-insurrection-of-a-million-minds-a-trocchi-reader

It could simply be a branch however I found info on a company, Alden Press (London & Northampton) Limited.

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ct/0128863

I didn't notice that, but in response I found this history of the company: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About The Alden Press (But Were Afraid to Ask)

"In 1974 Alden opened a second office in Northampton to build a dedicated technical typesetting operation for medical and scientific journals. This business formed the basis of Alden Prepress Services which is now one of the largest technical typesetters in the world."

Alden Prepress Services was opened in Chennai, India in 1998 and that still exists with the new name OKS Prepress.

I also found a company profile for The Alden Press Company founded in 1986 and located in Elk Grove, Illinois, USA: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/2444Q:US This company was purchased in 1993 by World Color Press Inc.: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-01-19-9303163635-story.html

I still maintain Alden Press is a shortened version of The Alden Press, but it might be worth waiting for some more opinions before taking further action. One thing to remember is separate Credits might be required for each of these localities.

Thanks for that info, I briefly thought about having it as 'Alden Press, Northampton' but the limited company also mentioned 'London' in its title so maybe decided not.

I've made three of the six "Estate of H.G. Wells" credits and put links to the profiles. I think they are to different to merge all in one.

Possibly could also merge all the executor credits

I would be inclined to think they all mean the same thing, i.e. The Estate of H. G. Wells. However, there might be an argument for keeping the estate and executor Credits separate.

I would also like to have known the fequency of the attributions, but I see Badmoon has taken the iniative and begun marking Credits as Duplicates. The first generated Credit is not always the best option in these type of situations.

All the other entries had 1-3 books except for Executors of the Estate of H. G. Wells, which had 4 or 5 from what I remember. As there are no sufficient images, the actual frequency of each variation is impossible to know.

I suggested a more conservative merge because I know there are differing opinions about what constitutes a separate entry. I know they are related to the Wells Estate, and I wouldn't mind seeing just one credit, but this way works too.

I think there's no problem using the first generated credit in these cases. There were no profiles, and the amount of books is not that great. If a specific name turns out to be problematic the entry can be always renamed.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/476529-n-b-l-pevsner N. B. L. Pevsner
https://books.discogs.com/credit/688035-nikolaus-pevsner Nikolaus Pevsner

I've added credits to both and didn't spot the other existed so may need a 'Do Not Use'. I can't decide which to keep. N.B.L seems more popular on books (after a google search), but then Nikolaus it what he is more 'well known' by now.

They both have two attributions at present. His books on Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/45243.Nikolaus_Pevsner seem to use Nikolaus Pevsner more, but that might be a modern trend.

I would keep the earlier Credit at present and NV the other books. The situation can be reviewed again if required.

All of the Polish Plato Works marked as duplicates (they all exist in Ancient Greek Works).

https://books.discogs.com/credit/499084-c-e-brock
https://books.discogs.com/credit/687351-charles-e-brock

Personally I'd go for Charles E. Brock as he was still credited that in his lifetime but not sure which is more commonly used.

I would go with either C. E. Brock or Charles E. Brock. It seems none of the books have the full name "Charles Edmund Brock".

I would opt for Charles E. Brock as it is the most credited form.

8 credits as Charles E. Brock (confirmed by images; 2 of these also credit C. E. Brock), 1 credit as C. E. Brock (uncomfirmed), 1 credit as C E Brock (uncomfirmed), 1 Credit in Russian Cyrillic as surname only (confirmed), 1 Credit in Russian Cyrillic as initials and surname (uncomfirmed).

I have merged Charles E. Brock

auboisdormant wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/84521-do-not-press
https://books.discogs.com/credit/247706-the-do-not-press

I've moved the later entry, but also changed it to The Do-Not Press as that is clearly the logo on the front of the books (plus the website)

meanisak wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/39112-captain-james-cook
https://books.discogs.com/credit/289289-james-cook

I'd got for James Cook, earlier entry, more credits and its how wiki lists him. However, th Captain credit may need a 'Do Not Use' rather than removal as I can see this popping up again and again.

Talking of which...

https://books.discogs.com/credit/229346-punk-rock
https://books.discogs.com/credit/705898-punk

Shall we just change the original earlier entry to 'Punk'?

The issue partly came about as the first 'Punk' entry was the US magazine of that name, that has now been temporarily changed to 'Punk (Magazine)', there is also an entry for the French 'Punk Magazine'.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/237735-punk-magazine
https://books.discogs.com/credit/614700-punk-magazine

Captain James Cook is the earlier entry (39112 vs 289289). In Australia, most people refer to him as Captain Cook or Captain James Cook (even though he was a Lieutenant when he made his first voyage of discovery). Most of the attributions are for the role of About/Subject, so the actual form of his name is difficult to ascertain. I have marked the later entry as a duplicate. It can be revisited if necessary.

Shall we just change the original earlier entry to 'Punk'?

Definitely, this has always been a problem.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/413917-f-m-busy marked as duplicate. NV'd the Credit in the book to https://books.discogs.com/credit/521944-f-m-busby

Re: Punk Rock and Punk

I see https://books.discogs.com/credit/705898-punk is the subculture rather than the music genre. I would think the two are inextricably linked, so if Punk Rock is changed to Punk then the profile would need a tweak to incorporate a wider definition.

I've moved the later entry, but also changed it to The Do-Not Press as that is clearly the logo on the front of the books (plus the website)

Thanks. I wasn't sure what approach would be the best. :-)

I think the 'Punk Rock' credit should be changed to 'Punk'. The term 'punk rock' is used far less often and I'd be happy for it to mean more than music.

I think we should also consider keeping both the (sub)culture and the music style as more specific subjects are more useful. I know the two are intertwined, but people might be interested in finding publications about a specific part of the punk scene, and considering we have already 650+ publications on that page, splitting into more specific subjects should be at least considered.

For example, Library of Congress has various punk-related subject headings, including (but not limited to):
Punk rock music
Punk culture
Punk rock musicians

Not saying we should use what they have - just that lumping everything under one entry might not be the best option in the long run.

I agree that Punk Rock and Punk culture can be two different subjects.

Maybe the solution is to modify the titles e.g. Punk (Music) and Punk (Culture), or eliminate the suffixes altogether. Hopefully, that might encourage users to make the distinction. Better late than never.

Just to clarify: instead of suffixes, just title them as Punk Music and Punk Culture.

I kept having a sense of déjà vu on this topic and finally remembered this Forum discussion: https://books.discogs.com/forum/685171-what-choice-between-punk-and-punk-rock

The current issue with the genre 'Punk Rock' is users can no longer readily see it as an option, when 'Punk' is typed out the drop down says:
Punk
Punk & Post-Punk (a publication)
Punk Rawk (another publication)
Czech Punk
Slovenian Punk...(plus 5 more countries below that)

So this will lead to the entry 'Punk' taking over from the 'Punk Rock' entry as to automatic go-to selection. It just seems daft having two entries which mean exactly the same thing. Hence, changing 'Punk Rock' to 'Punk'. I have no problem with additional sub-genres of this being added (Music), (Art) etc..

Maybe they could be formatted like how you set up the World War Credits, i.e. Punk: Music, Punk: Culture, Punk: Czech, etc. Just a thought.

I would add the suffix (Magazine), or (Fanzine) to any of the publications.

thethrowback wrote:

Maybe they could be formatted like how you set up the World War Credits, i.e. Punk: Music, Punk: Culture, Punk: Czech, etc. Just a thought.

I might try a dummy run of that to see how if it works or if other credits take precendence.

We still have the 'Punk' v 'Punk Rock' issue, they are basically identical. With 665 credits I still think that should be 'Punk Rock' should be renamed 'Punk' and the credits moved over.

I might try a dummy run of that to see how if it works or if other credits take precendence

That sounds like a good plan as you never really know how Bookogs' quirky sorting system is going to function.

To my mind Punk music and culture are synonymous. However, a couple of users have suggested the need for a separate Punk Culture subject, which could be helpful. Therefore, my suggestion is to rename "Punk Rock" to "Punk: Music" (with its 665 attributions), "Punk" to "Punk: Culture" (some of the 9 attributions might need to be transferred across to Punk: Music), and prefix any of the other Punk subjects with "Punk:"

Retrospectively, redefining the About/Subject for the 665 attributions currently in Punk Rock would be impossible unless the user making the edits is totally familiar with the publication.

The following is a duplicate that has been cleaned out of everything
https://books.discogs.com/credit/266685-steve-taylor-2

The following is a duplicate that has been cleaned out of everything

https://books.discogs.com/credit/732301-fran-perzman

The following is a duplicate that has been cleaned out of everything

https://books.discogs.com/credit/732360-craig-costaldo

The following is a duplicate that has been cleaned out of everything

https://books.discogs.com/credit/732395-harry-crosfield

https://books.discogs.com/credit/78802-nordisk-bogproduktion-a-s
https://books.discogs.com/credit/82887-nordisk-bogproduktion-a-s

The latter entry is missing the trailing dot from the name, which can only be a typo made by whoever submitted it, as "a.s." is an abbreviation of Aktie Selskab (English: Limited company)

datamgmt you reckon https://books.discogs.com/credit/266685-steve-taylor-2 is the same as https://books.discogs.com/credit/28177-steve-taylor

Steve Taylor is described as "UK based music journalist. Contributor to Smash Hits and The Face in the early 1980's." Steve Taylor (2) is described as "Artist-illustrator who provided artwork for early issues of the US magazine 'Punk'."

I'm not sure how you have concluded they are the same person, but it would be helpful to provide a verifiable source for your information if you are going to make these sorts of changes. If you don't have a good source then I suggest you bring the matter to the Forum before making any changes.

I have marked the following as 'Don't Use' as comments need to removed by the staff before they can be recycled:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/732301-fran-perzman
https://books.discogs.com/credit/732360-craig-costaldo
https://books.discogs.com/credit/732395-harry-crosfield
https://books.discogs.com/credit/732220-nick-detroit

meanisak wrote:

thethrowback wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/82887-nordisk-bogproduktion-a-s marked as duplicate

Thanks :)

This one
https://books.discogs.com/credit/653660-nick-hamlyn
is not used, and seems to be a duplicate of
https://books.discogs.com/credit/215229-nick-hamlyn

I've removed the duplicate

datamgmt wrote:

The following is a duplicate that has been cleaned out of everything
https://books.discogs.com/credit/266685-steve-taylor-2

Please be careful before creating new credits as you only need to amend the existing credit. I'm guessing that the artist-illustrator is more commonly credited as Steven Taylor? If so the Steve Taylor ANV nees to be used if he is credited that way in any of the magazines (I assuming he must have been as that was what he was first credited as.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/732303-steven-taylor

Throwback - I'll look at the Punk thing tomorrow!

Thanks westpier for working out that https://books.discogs.com/credit/266685-steve-taylor-2 became https://books.discogs.com/credit/732303-steven-taylor (it was near dawn and my brain was asleep).

I only found one attribution that credited Steve Taylor, so I NV'd it. I have marked Steve Taylor (2) as 'Don't Use' as the comment will need to be removed by the staff before it can be recycled.

Throwback - I'll look at the Punk thing tomorrow!

Cheers, give me a shout if you need a hand.

https://books.discogs.com/book/567757-nme-october-1995

Not sure what that was about as it was an exact copy of the original submission (which is very detailed), so I'm guessing it was created using the Add One Like It feature. The only difference was the title. I have stripped the details and marked it as a Duplicate.

hello everyone,

are these two a duplicate credit?

https://books.discogs.com/credit/22046-indigo
https://books.discogs.com/credit/454078-indigo-3

i guess that they are two different uses of the imprint name Indigo, but if anyone has any info on how to tell them apart that would be good to add.

elahrairah wrote:

hello everyone,

are these two a duplicate credit?

https://books.discogs.com/credit/22046-indigo
https://books.discogs.com/credit/454078-indigo-3

i guess that they are two different uses of the imprint name Indigo, but if anyone has any info on how to tell them apart that would be good to add.

Yes dupe according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Publishing_Group

Indigo originally part of the Cassell Group (earlier books) which appears to have been bought out by Orion.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/115796-cassell-group

In additon to above the only possible difference is the earlier Cassell version of Indigo, the two 'I's in the logo appeared in italic form, Orion version they are all uniform.

thethrowback wrote:

Cheers, give me a shout if you need a hand.

Just amended them to Punk: Music & Punk: Culture, neither appear in the drop down, it starts with two series then is followed by (Name of country) Punk. If the main subject is hard to find that is potentially problematic and I think will lead to more dupes.

"Fixed" Indigo, there was an American imprint of the same name credited incorrectly so moved that book to Indigo (3) and amended info.

Just amended them to Punk: Music & Punk: Culture, neither appear in the drop down

You could always keep / create a "Punk" entry with a warning sign, with directions which credits to use.

The sorting is skewed anyway and could use some improving. It's causing some of the suffixed entries pushed out of the drop-down as well. For example if you enter "Stella" or "Rob", the (2)s and (3)s are not shown in the drop-down.

You can't do much about the vagaries of the sorting system which operates like a lottery.

I have added a detail to the profile of Punk: Music asking users to also consider Punk: Culture for other expressions of the lifestyle.

I agree with auboisdormant's suggestion, so I have set up a Punk Credit with Do Not Use image and links to the music genre and culture Credits.

Next question. Do we format all of the other punk related Credits the same way? https://books.discogs.com/search?q=Punk&type=credit There are umpteen Punk country Credits, should they be formatted Punk: Country Name?

https://books.discogs.com/credit/580194-josh-fishman was created from https://books.discogs.com/book/580132-le-scienze-febbraio-2017 (Italian edition of magazine "Scientific American") but the associated image of the list of contents reveals that this was a typo for Josh Fischman. Credit moved to https://books.discogs.com/credit/499472-josh-fischman Senior Editor at Scientific American, who has a number of credits for other issues of this journal. I need to create a credit for an author called Joshua Fishman so proposing to tweak the now-redundant https://books.discogs.com/credit/580194-josh-fishman to suit.

There was just more step: retitle the redundant Credit for Josh Fishman to Joshua Fishman. I have done that for you, so it is now ready to go: https://books.discogs.com/credit/580194-joshua-fishman

If a redundant Credit is not required, then simply retitle it as Duplicate and another user will recycle it at some stage.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/79627-ellen-kirk
https://books.discogs.com/credit/670123-ellen-kirk

This is the same translator, all three books that are currently attributed to her are found on this list from a website dedicated to Danish Translators (only in Danish, sorry, but I hope it's easy enough to find the titles and verify the validity of the site)
http://danskoversaetterleksikon.dk/ellen-kirk/

I'll add some more info on Ellen Kirk (and a couple of books) when the duplicate is gone

auboisdormant wrote:

Merged to https://books.discogs.com/credit/79627-ellen-kirk

Thank you,

Also found this
https://books.discogs.com/work/691499-ronja-rovardotter
which has no books attached, and is a duplicate of this
https://books.discogs.com/work/562052-ronja-rovardotter

Am I right in assuming I can't just change a Work to duplicate, as I also need to fill in Author info?

You can try adding an empty author field and then deleting it. That at least works for me.

auboisdormant wrote:

You can try adding an empty author field and then deleting it. That at least works for me.

Thanks, never would have figured that out :D

Marked this as a duplicate: https://books.discogs.com/work/691499-ronja-rovardotter

thethrowback wrote:

Next question. Do we format all of the other punk related Credits the same way? https://books.discogs.com/search?q=Punk&type=credit There are umpteen Punk country Credits, should they be formatted Punk: Country Name?

I would prefer to to see it as Punk: Country name.

But a little part of me is wondering whether the current way they're listed is more intuitive for users? Or is just because one person has done it so they all followed suit? I'm just trying to picture potential issues on keeping it the way it is or is better to standardise across the board?

Thanks, never would have figured that out :D

Np, glad to be of help. :-)

But a little part of me is wondering whether the current way they're listed is more intuitive for users? Or is just because one person has done it so they all followed suit?

I think the current way is more intuitive, just based on the fact that very few credits are entered with the colon - most of the time they have been edited afterwards to match that system.

It might be because outside of Bookogs, as far as I know, very few places use a colon, so it's not a very common method. Colon is usually used for subtitles. For subjects, usually other dividers are used (comma, hyphen or two), or then the subject is worded so that it includes a country (or other detail): Slavery in the United States; History of the United States.

We don't of course have to follow others, but maybe this is something worth discussing again.

It is certainly less work to maintain the status quo with the rest of the Punk related Credits and as a consequence I can't see much point in adding a colon to Punk Music and Punk Culture. It just confuses users if there is two systems. Therefore, I have removed the colon from both of those Credits.

erratum: It just confuses users if there are two systems.

Would it be better to remove all the colons for all subjects? I think I used the colon as it seemed to be more clearly stating what the subject was. World War II North Africa (or whatever the first subject was) just looked odd at the time.

I don't think that is necessary. For example, I think the way the World War Credits are formatted is fine and they are mostly consistent (there are a few exceptions).

I would suggest that it is preferable to have a consistent formatting system applied to all of the about/subjects for a particular topic. It just seemed incongruous to have two of the Punk about/subject Credits formatted one way and then all of the rest formatted another way.

thethrowback wrote:

I would suggest that it is preferable to have a consistent formatting system applied to all of the about/subjects for a particular topic. It just seemed incongruous to have two of the Punk about/subject Credits formatted one way and then all of the rest formatted another way.

In what way, do you mean having 'Punk' as the first word? Or something else?

I simply meant there didn't seem to be a need for a colon separator when the majority of the Punk related about/subject Credits don't include one.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Another dupe:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/70103-hogarth-press (39 credits)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/536603-the-hogarth-press (2 credits)

Was undecisive as the publisher was clearly credited as The Hogarth Press on its own publications eg.

https://books.discogs.com/book/693810-the-dark-island

Also limited company was also called 'The Hogarth Press Limited':
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00431075
https://books.discogs.com/credit/629639-the-hogarth-press-ltd

I have marked https://books.discogs.com/credit/536603-the-hogarth-press as a duplicate.

It is complicated as there seems to be equal references to both forms of the name on the internet.

The attributions currently in the database are as follows:

Hogarth Press: 5 (confirmed by images) and 17 (unconfirmed)
The Hogarth Press NV: 8 (confirmed) and 5 (unconfirmed)

Those figures could be skewed as some users might not bother to add an NV and the credit in the book might take the form of 'the Hogarth Press' which can interpreted both ways. Personally, I think the Credit should be titled The Hogarth Press, but that is not indicated by the attributions.

I have also retitled https://books.discogs.com/credit/629639-the-hogarth-press-ltd (The Hogarth Press Ltd) as this is the most common form.

Update: Hogarth Press: 5 (confirmed by images) and 18 (unconfirmed)

A big edit but these two are the same:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/420031-hodder-stoughton-ltd (87 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/115924-hodder-and-stoughton-ltd (older credit, 60 entries)

I think we should keep Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., more entries and keeps it in line with:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/25180-hodder-stoughton

But put a 'Do Not Use' on Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. rather than remove it.

I think we should keep Hodder & Stoughton Ltd

I'm ok with that. It's a lot of work either way, so if you're willing to do the work, I don't really care which one you go with.

I made a typo and created

https://books.discogs.com/credit/738535-simon-m-sullivan

when trying to use

https://books.discogs.com/credit/152198-simon-m-sullivan

My apologies! I've fixed the credit on the book so the new one is empty and can be deleted. Thanks!

MrsJarvisCocker wrote:

I made a typo and created

https://books.discogs.com/credit/738535-simon-m-sullivan

when trying to use

https://books.discogs.com/credit/152198-simon-m-sullivan

My apologies! I've fixed the credit on the book so the new one is empty and can be deleted. Thanks!

Done!

Anchor Press Ltd https://books.discogs.com/credit/41267-anchor-press-ltd (21 entries)
The Anchor Press Ltd https://books.discogs.com/credit/465190-the-anchor-press-ltd (19 entries)

Personally I'd got with the first one, but leave the other as 'Do Not Use'. The company still seems active as Anchor Press Design and Print UK Limited http://anchor-press.co.uk/

Hmmmm. The profile for Anchor Brendon Ltd says:

"Incorporated on 15 August 1900 as The Anchor Press Limited.
Renamed Anchor Brendon Limited on 16 May 1983"

ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED(THE) 15 Aug 1900 - 16 May 1983
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00066978

That would sugggest that "The Anchor Press Limited" is the official name.

Is the website really for the same company?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08131024
The address matches, but while the website says "established in 1930", Companies House says it was incorporated in 2012.

Did you find something that connects them?

Didn't spot that, thanks! So go with The Anchor Press Ltd then?

The only reason I can think for the est. 1930 is it was named something completely different and has been rebranded as Anchor Press. Judging from the name changes with mergers and take overs that have happened it wouldn't surprise me.

The only reason I can think for the est. 1930 is it was named something completely different and has been rebranded as Anchor Press.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering too, but could not find any information about a previous name.

I would go with The Anchor Press Ltd, at least there's some proof that it was the official name. It's also easier for the credit field, it pops up even if you enter just "Anchor Press Ltd" (which doesn't happen the other way around).

https://books.discogs.com/credit/310600-hells-angels
https://books.discogs.com/credit/741842-les-hells-angels

We don't have other language credits do we? (sorry its late and I'm tired)

I think one credit is sufficient.

Is the website really for the same company?

This question still remains. They've been merged to Anchor Press Ltd, and the profile has been now updated with the logo from the website, even though there's no proof of it being the same as the company that existed from 1900-1983.

auboisdormant wrote:

Is the website really for the same company?

This question still remains. They've been merged to Anchor Press Ltd, and the profile has been now updated with the logo from the website, even though there's no proof of it being the same as the company that existed from 1900-1983.

I thought we had gone for The Anchor Press Limited as that was the correct name until 1983 ie. it covers most if not all the credits.

I thought we had gone for The Anchor Press Limited as that was the correct name until 1983 ie. it covers most if not all the credits.

Yeah, I thought so too, but obviously thought wrong... :D

Anyway, it's not that big of a deal, at least all the books are now on the same page. The title can be changed. I think the logo/website is a concern, though.

Or maybe it's the time to write down 'the community's rules' and state that we currently want (or don't want) a separate credit for every name variation of a company that changed legal names while existed, ideally all linking to each other but not necessarily.

I think the logo/website is a concern

You are correct on both counts. The Anchor Press was founded in 1900 and located in Tiptree, Essex. I found an article that says the firm was relocted to Scotland in 1990 but the trail ends there. The former site in Tiptree was converted to a printing museum in 2001 but closed down in 2014: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5512539.tiptree-pressing-ahead-with-traditions-of-printing/ and https://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/anchor-press-museum-04180631/

Looking at the attributions The Anchor Press Ltd is the most credited form of the name.

auboisdormant wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/29513-macdonald-co-publishers-ltd
https://books.discogs.com/credit/626955-macdonald-co-publishers-ltd

Move the 7 credits over but i'm tempted to use Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd as that seems more prevalent, there again a lot of the books don't show that page.

I'd change the other credit to Macdonald & Co. as I've seen that listed in a few of the books but it hasn't got its own PAN yet.

I have tallied the figures and there is an even split of 19 attributions each for Macdonald & Co, (Publishers) Ltd and Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd

There are two NV attributions currently with the former that could go either way: Macdonald & Co., Ltd and Macdonald and Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

The total for Macdonald & Co, (Publishers) Ltd could be erroneous as many of the Credits can't be confirmed using images. The opposite is true for Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd

My preference would be to keep Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd

I also found these other Credits for the same company: Macdonald & Co, (Publishers) and Macdonald which appear to be valid.

I have created a Credit for Macdonald & Co.

I have transferred attributions to Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd with NVs and marked https://books.discogs.com/credit/29513-macdonald-co-publishers-ltd as a duplicate.

A source states that Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd was renamed Macdonald and Jane's Ltd in 1974, however the books credited to Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd seemingly contradict this: http://www.hardyboys.co.uk/history/macdonald.php

sorry everyone, hope i have broken anything.

*haven't

No, you haven't broken anything. Just a miscommunication. :-)

A source states that Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd was renamed Macdonald and Jane's Ltd in 1974, however the books credited to Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd seemingly contradict this

According to Companies House the name has been used after 1974.

Looking also at some other databases, it seems that the incorporation date of one of the entries in CH, 10/08/1938, is possible. There are books and ads at least from the 1940s that use the name Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd.

Macdonald and Jane's Publishers Limited seems to have been first used in the early/mid 1970s, so the 1974 rename date is possible, though I could not confirm that. CH says it was renamed to Macdonald and Jane's Publishing Group Limited in 1979.

Now it gets a bit weird. It seems that the company was renamed again to Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd in 1980, and that the name was used until 1992, which looks about right looking at the credits.

The 1992 date also coincides with the Time Warner purchase: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/20/business/company-news-time-warner-s-macdonald-bid.html

Inc and LLC are different company types, so those should be kept separate. Inc. is the older name, and IIRC it was changed somewhere around 2000.

These two could be possibly merged though:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/27198-tom-doherty-associates
https://books.discogs.com/credit/27848-a-tom-doherty-associates-book

There are not too many images, but these both refer to the publishing company, we just don't know which one.

Their title page often credits
[Imprint]
A Tom Doherty Associates Book

Copyright page may or may not specify which of the companies (Inc. or LLC) is the publisher. "Tom Doherty Associates" could be used for the cases where the exact company is not given.

These should be probably merged too:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/20059-tor
https://books.discogs.com/credit/27197-tor-books

They both refer to the same imprint. While the logo says just Tor, it's often referred as Tor Books.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/20059-tor
https://books.discogs.com/credit/27197-tor-books

The company website refers to itself as 'Tor.com' 'Tor' and 'Tor Books': https://publishing.tor.com/about/

Pan Macmillan refers to it as 'Tor': https://www.panmacmillan.com/tor

The Twitter page is titled 'Tor Books': https://twitter.com/torbooks?lang=en as is Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/torbooks/

Wikipedia swaps between 'Tor Books' and 'Tor': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Books

This book provides a good source of the variant name, has various version of Tom Doherty Asscciates, plus Tor Books and Tor (though looks like it might be To Fantasy). Enough to confuse anyone.

https://books.discogs.com/book/721929-a-fall-of-princes

According to ISFDB, Tor Fantasy is a publisher series: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?1902

Tor.com is its own thing: https://www.tor.com/about-us/

As they say, they occasionally publish things, and these are branded as Tor.com:
https://books.discogs.com/book/629066-father-christmas-a-wonder-tale-of-the-north

But the Tor and Tor Books profiles refer to the same imprint. I think Tor would be more intuitive as Tor Books is not mentioned on all books.

Looking at recent books, it looks like Tom Doherty Associates LLC might be a trade name nowadays too. The company has been marked as inactive (beginning December 2016), and the books now state that Tor is an imprint of Macmillan Publishing Group instead of Tom Doherty Associates.

The same website https://www.tor.com/about-us/ on another page https://publishing.tor.com/about/ states: "Welcome to Tor.com Publishing, an imprint for science fiction and fantasy novellas and novels".

The same page also lists the staff and their roles and only refers to Tor.com and Tor Books. Tor might be more intuitive, but ignoring Tor Books might be excluding valid data. I don't know.

Welcome to Tor.com Publishing, an imprint for science fiction and fantasy novellas and novels

Yes...? It's still not the same imprint as "Tor"/"Tor Books". At least the books I've seen say "Tor.com" and/or have the spaceship logo. The copyright page has "A Tor.com Book" instead of "A Tor Book".

Both imprints are currently in use with their own websites and own logos.

Tor might be more intuitive, but ignoring Tor Books might be excluding valid data. I don't know.

Is not having a separate entry "excluding valid data"? What is the name variation function for?

We're not even dealing with a branding change, the logo has always said "Tor". This is a "imprint name vs. logo" case, familiar issue in Discogs too. There it was decided to go with the logo because it'll be more intuitive as the imprint name is not necessarily printed on the item. (I'm not sure which label we were discussing, I think it was either Virgin or Sire).

We could of course consider using the "Tor Books" credit only for cases when the book says exactly that. Currently they all seem to be "First Published By" credits.

We could of course consider using the "Tor Books" credit only for cases when the book says exactly that

In the absence of images that show the actual credit it is difficult to tell. I have never submitted a book from that publisher, so maybe users that have a vested interest can sort this matter out.

The inclusion of 'Books' with the publisher name is not without precedent (I'm sure there are other examples):

https://books.discogs.com/credit/21046-penguin-books and https://books.discogs.com/credit/24980-penguin

In the absence of images that show the actual credit it is difficult to tell.

The First Published By credits are probably for Tor Books, at least what I've seen.

This is what their own books usually look like, haven't really seen any books deviating much from these:
https://books.discogs.com/book/1056-around-the-world-in-eighty-days
https://books.discogs.com/book/104952-a-darker-shade-of-magic

"Tor Books" is mentioned on some books in blurbs and ads, or in a "Also by Tor Books" section.

The inclusion of 'Books' with the publisher name is not without precedent (I'm sure there are other examples)

Well, in the case of Penguin Books/Penguin at least some of the books say "Penguin Books" everywhere, and/or "Penguin Books, and imprint of...".

As some books carry both a Penguin and a Penguin Books name/logo, they are probably one and the same. But merging those at this point is

In Discogs when a label has used two (or more) different logos (for example with or without "Records") during their existence, and there's proof of them being the exactly same label, they get only one entry.

This is not a criticism, but my impression is that you have shown a propensity to dispense with Discogs type rules and forge a new paradigm for Bookogs, which I think is great if it advances the site. So, is that Discogs rule really applicable in this situation or do we approach it differently on Bookogs?

I know zilch about Tor/Tor Books apart from the little I discovered on their website, but it was apparent to me that the company constantly refers to itself as Tor Books. It seems odd to me to ignore that when recording data that explicitly has that name listed in the submitted article.

I have just looked at every attribution in the Tor Books database, The role does vary: First Published, Imprint, Publisher. Many of the books don't have an image to verify the actual credit and the role, so it is impossible to be certain if Tor Books has been used correctly or that it is a legitimate name in those examples.

A number of the books have been submitted by experienced users, including: Supernaut1970, elahrairah, BadMoon. Maybe they have an opinion on the subject.

thethrowback wrote:

A number of the books have been submitted by experienced users, including: Supernaut1970, elahrairah, BadMoon. Maybe they have an opinion on the subject.

I've checked my two items and both credit TOR Books.
Both are German editions (from different publishing houses) with TOR Books on credit role First Published.
As long as Bookogs is without an "Alias" function like the one on Discogs, I'll vote for keeping Tor and Tor Books as separate credits.

Stay healthy!

Both are German editions (from different publishing houses) with TOR Books on credit role First Published.

Yeah, that's usually the case, and I suggested keeping the entry just for those credits, and updating the profile according to that.

"Tor Books" is not mentioned on their original editions though, please see:
https://books.discogs.com/book/1056-around-the-world-in-eighty-days
https://books.discogs.com/book/104952-a-darker-shade-of-magic

Do you think these books should be credited to "Tor Books" as well?

I don't know what the original editions of my books mention.
The two editions you've linked above both state "A Tor Book" with Book in capitalization which indicates it is a name.
However, on those items, I personally would credit Tor as an imprint but wouldn't consider Tor Books totally wrong either, if I would find it on an existing entry.

However, on those items, I personally would credit Tor as an imprint but wouldn't consider Tor Books totally wrong either, if I would find it on an existing entry.

My intention was never to indicate that Tor Books would be wrong at all -- it's not. Some books mention it and the imprint has been called that.

What I'm trying to say that when it comes to the imprint, Tor would be the easier/more intuitive option to go with, because:
- it appears exactly as that on most books
- it doesn't require any additional research or knowledge
- it is the registered trademark, and
- it would be consistent with their other imprints (the name matches the logo)

That's all. But if everyone else likes having two pages for the imprint, then I have nothing more to say about this. :-)

https://books.discogs.com/credit/208309-sweet (22 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/290853-the-sweet (8 entries)

I've always known them as The Sweet and they're listed on Discogs as that, maybe in other countries (eg. Germany, where most the 22 entries come from) they were known as Sweet?

First entry also include's a rogue graffiti artist which I didn't move until this was resolved.

Tricky one that. They started off as The Sweet for their first two albums but thereafter were credited as Sweet (there were a few exceptions). Even their website is named The Sweet but refers to them as Sweet: http://www.thesweet.com/

I would stick with the first credit that has 22 attributions.

Make that 21 excluding graffiti Sweet!

Dupe or not?
https://books.discogs.com/credit/369810-fine-art
of
https://books.discogs.com/credit/131171-fine-art-photographic-library

I felt there should have been an 'About/Subject' credit entry for fine art(s) but only found these.

Duplicates:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/477440-tretyakov-gallery
https://books.discogs.com/credit/687471-gosudarstvennaia-tretiakovskaia-galereia
https://books.discogs.com/credit/261060-state-tretiakov-gallery — not clear whether this is the exact alias used in the book.

The first one should be renamed into the English title and the other ones recycled, BUT then credits named in the original language will eventually re-appear.

^Second. The second one should be renamed.

Dupe or not?

They are not duplicates. The back cover of Icons of England says "fine art / Alamy", most likely only referring to the Alamy fine art category/collection:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/fine-art.html

IMO that credit should be either to just "Alamy", or to "fine art / Alamy".

It seems Alamy does this quite often, there are credits like "backgrounds / Alamy", "health & beauty / Alamy", "royalty-free / Alamy", etc.

https://books.discogs.com/book/369807-icons-of-england is one of my submissions. It seems I have misinterpreted the Credit "fine art / Alamy", so I have marked https://books.discogs.com/credit/369810-fine-art as a Duplicate. Thanks.

^Second. The second one should be renamed.

The only thing with that is every attribution in the 687471 database will require the NV Государственная Третьяковская Галерея as it is credited for the role of Publisher, it is not an About/Subject role.

But whenever there's a book ABOUT a publisher there's no reason to create a separate credit, right?

These must be for the same person but i can't be 100% sure:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/254433-aleksandr-nikolaevich-lavrentev
https://books.discogs.com/credit/247087-aleksandr-lavrentev

But whenever there's a book ABOUT a publisher there's no reason to create a separate credit, right

No there isn't. The difference is the About/Subject IMO does not strictly need to reflect exactly what is shown in the submitted article, whereas other Credits should. Also, Государственная Третьяковская Галерея is the most credited form of the name.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/247087-aleksandr-lavrentev marked as duplicate. Less entries and it was an English transliteration with other forms.

Andrei A Tarkovsky is probably the film director's son, Andrei Andreevich, born 1970.

Thanks, makes sense :)
The profile could use an update.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/745931-andrei-tarkovsky marked as duplicate

You could right about Andrey A. Tarkovsky https://books.discogs.com/credit/616200-andrey-a-tarkovsky but the father's full name is Andrey (or Andrei) Arsenyevich Tarkovskiy. All I can find on his son is a quote that his son was born in 1970: https://biography.yourdictionary.com/andrei-arsenyevich-tarkovsky and his Discogs credit: https://www.discogs.com/artist/2553419-Andrey-A-Tarkovsky

I can't anything on https://books.discogs.com/book/745988-tarkovsky-films-stills-polaroids-writings or https://books.discogs.com/book/616198-electronic-beats-no-33 to confirm if the reference is to the son of the filmmaker, although the publication dates indicate that might be the case, especially Electronic Beats.

I have written a profile for https://books.discogs.com/credit/616200-andrey-a-tarkovsky based on uncertainty. If anyone can confirm this detail please rewrite the profile.

There is 4 duplicates :

Hip Hop Family Tree 1,
Hip Hop Family Tree 1:

Hip Hop Family Tree 2,
Hip Hop Family Tree 2:

Hip Hop Family Tree 3,
Hip Hop Family Tree 3:

Hip Hop Family Tree 4,
Hip Hop Family Tree 4:

Can someone (or I) delete the first of each ?

Sorry for Hip Hop Family Tree, this different (american and french)

MikeBluesFr the only thing is they probably shouldn't have been submitted to Bookogs but Comicogs as they are described as comics on the cover.

I have transferred the attributions with https://books.discogs.com/credit/408794-simon-and-schuster to https://books.discogs.com/credit/24328-simon-schuster using NV's. I have marked 408794 as Do Not Use with a redirect.

westpier wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/24328-simon-schuster 348 entries
https://books.discogs.com/credit/408794-simon-and-schuster 28 entries

Unless there is a reason for keep it?

Christ that was quick! Took me about a week last I time I had a go.

The only thing slowing me down is the Bookogs server!

Not necessarily a bad thing... gives others sometimes the chance to do something. :P

LOL

in french : MDR

"mort de rire". Sounds painful.

It has always been used in french : mort (dead) de rire (laugh), mort de peur (fear), mort de fatigue (tiredness), etc.

westpier wrote:

German typsetter based in Hamburg:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/21909-utesch-gmbh (credits in 1990 & 2002)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/23312-utesch-satztechnik (credits late 1980s-early 1990s)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/39958-utesch-satztechnik-gmbh (credit in 1996 & c2010)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/364424-utesch-media-processing-gmbh-hamburg (credit 2009)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22684-ump-utesch-media-processing-gmbh (credit 1996)

According to Discogs run by this bloke:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/633842-alfred-utesch-hamburg
https://www.discogs.com/artist/3195588-Alfred-Utesch

any preferences? maybe merge some of them?

Had it in the back of my mind and took my time now... should have known better.
First there was Alfred Utesch (Alfred Utesch Spezialbetrieb für Satzherstellung) founded 1946, legal form was OHG. In 1970, the company was changed (refounded?) as GmbH, for some reason (I assume taxes) the OHG was kept on registration until 1978.
The full designation was abbreviated, if not with Alfred Utesch (GmbH), with Utesch Satztechnik (GmbH). At the end of 1991 / beginning of 1992 officially renamed to Utesch Datentechnik (GmbH) or Utesch Satztechnik (GmbH) (some sources resoverate on this point).
Around 1995 the name was changed again to Utesch GmbH.
Presumably Utesch Gmbh got financial difficulties and was (apparently) divided into two companies in 2003: Media-Nord-Print Kühn + Utesch GmbH & Co. KG (initialized MNP), in which the descendants of Alfred Utesch are involved, which is spezialized in producing merchandise and promotional items and UMP Utesch Media Processing GmbH, which is specialized in digital typesetting and design.
I'm going to merge Utetsch Satztechnik & Utesch Satztechnick GmbH and Utesch Media Processing Gmbh Hamburg & UMP Utesch Media ... and add some info to the profiles.

Thanks for that BadMoon, UK publishers can be a struggle at times for me with the variant names let alone German ones.

That is a complex history. Good research BadMoon.

Yes, the one that was in the database first. They both start with Altamont.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/551928-altamont-free-concert marked as duplicate

foxmulder​ has found that there are three About/Subject Credits for the same thing:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/482429-quantum-mechanics
https://books.discogs.com/credit/551675-quantum-theory
https://books.discogs.com/credit/680914-quantum-physics

Do we opt for the first created, Quantum Mechanics with 4 attributions, or Quantum theory with 6, or Quantum Physics​ with 8?

Quantum theory and quantum physics may be interpreted as the same, although physics would also cover previous, outdated theories.
Quantum mechanics is only one part of quantum physics, dealing with particles, despite to the quantum field theory.

You are right, quantum mechanics is a specific branch of quantum physics, however in English at least, the two terms have become interchangeable. I just wonder if the books that use the Credit "quantum mechanics" are actually about that subject, but I suppose you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the submitters.

I suggest keeping Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics. The profile of Quantum Mechanics would state that it relates only to that specific subject and for the broader subject refer to Quantum Physics. How does that sound?

Sounds good to me, but I'm not an expert, as my previous post shows most of my knowledge in theoretical physics.
But I'm proud to say, that I've heard of Schrödinger's cat before it was mentioned in Big Bang Theory :))

I think my neighbour has got a Schrödinger's cat, or then again it might be a Siamese cat. The trouble is I'm not sure if it is alive or dead.

Thanks, I will make the changes.

Another more complex case:

Appl/Aprinta
https://books.discogs.com/credit/238353-appl-aprinta-wemding
https://books.discogs.com/credit/99835-firmengruppe-appl-aprinta-druck
Appl is a bavarian media group based in Wemding but has facilities in Freising, Würzburg and Ahrensburg, saccording to Wiki there is:

appl druck GmbH, Würzburg, Din A4 offset print, the main business
appl Druck GmbH Freising, specialized in procution of magazines
appl Druck Ahrensburg, specialized in Offset for Booklets, envelopes, etc
aprinta Druck GmbH, book printing

so i think those:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/66812-aprinta-druck-wemding
https://books.discogs.com/credit/22697-aprinta
Are the technically the same, but reflect a certain time when aprinta was propably a much smaller thing.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/40762-appl-wemding
https://books.discogs.com/credit/37873-druckerei-appl
https://books.discogs.com/credit/112512-appl-druck-wemding
Those seem to be more recent, when aprinta became the headquarter of the group

https://books.discogs.com/credit/115232-druckerei-georg-appl
https://books.discogs.com/credit/22696-georg-appl
seem to be the oldest instance here on Bookogs

Sources:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmengruppe_APPL (German)

How to title? How to merge? How to both reflect the history of the company and make it easy for users to add the correct profile? There are lot more such cases here.
I only took Wiki as a source so far, maybe someone wants to browse the official page https://www.appl.de/ as it seems to bear more informations.

All moved to https://books.discogs.com/credit/24519-les-editions-de-minuit & and the other entry marked as duplicate.

Thanks!

Not so much a dupe but how to rename:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/273589-classic-rock UK magazine but includes German ones
https://books.discogs.com/credit/729116-classic-rock Italian version
https://books.discogs.com/credit/634164-classic-rock-03 German version

I'm guessing list not UK ones like the Russian one with no brackets?
https://books.discogs.com/credit/494821-classic-rock-russia Classic Rock Russia

I think brackets needed when the periodical's official title don't contains the country's name. For example the Hungarian Playboy's official title is Playboy Hungary. But CKM is just CKM so i used CKM (Hungary). I think brackets are the best solution when official title is unknown at this moment. (And UK is unnecessary in the title of course because of the original edition).

https://books.discogs.com/credit/526114-ckm-hungary

https://books.discogs.com/credit/27998-playboy

I agree. If there are international editions of a magazine then it would be good practice to add the country/region as a bracketed suffix, not a variation number.

Found duplicate credits;
about the planet: https://books.discogs.com/credit/499874-mercury
about the company: https://books.discogs.com/credit/144456-mercury
I suggest to use Mercury (Planet) for the first and not Mercury (2). Anyway the record company's credit entered first in the DB three years ago.

I added suffixes to the international editions of Classic Rock. I had a quick look through the UK editions for the German inclusions but couldn't find them. If you can locate them westpier that would be handy.

Added planet suffix to Mercury.

thethrowback wrote:

I added suffixes to the international editions of Classic Rock. I had a quick look through the UK editions for the German inclusions but couldn't find them. If you can locate them westpier that would be handy.

Added planet suffix to Mercury.

My mistake, they're credited as 'Licened from' Classic Rock. Thansk for that.

This subject I added was for the film
https://books.discogs.com/credit/267454-the-great-rock-n-roll-swindle

I havne't added a suffix (yet), is it worthwhile having one for the film and one for the LP?:
The Great Rock 'N' Roll Swindle (film)
in anticipation of:
The Great Rock 'N' Roll Swindle (album)

Or is that just confusing for future credits? ie. it's not as if there will be that many additions.

Another example is A Clockwork Orange where there is the Kubrick film and the Burgess book:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/263218-a-clockwork-orange

I have noticed that a lot of album about/subject Credits have the suffix (Album) which I think is a great idea. I don't see a problem adding the suffix (Album) or (Film) to differentiate the various Credits. It makes choosing the correct Credit easier.

In retrospect, I wish all the Series Credits had the suffix (Series).

If anyone's curious how to say 'duplicate' in other languages: here's how in Russian:
https://books.discogs.com/search?q=%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82&sort=date_added%2Casc
(posting this for anyone looking for more reusable entries)

It would be helpful to use the English word Duplicate, so that they are reused by the wider community.

Are these two different credits?
https://books.discogs.com/credit/26869-owl-book
https://books.discogs.com/credit/51420-owl-books
As far as i understand the publisher uses the line 'An Owl Book' as an imprint (how cute). Not sure if this is the case in those without title page photos.

Poganina wrote:

Are these two different credits?
https://books.discogs.com/credit/26869-owl-book
https://books.discogs.com/credit/51420-owl-books
As far as i understand the publisher uses the line 'An Owl Book' as an imprint (how cute). Not sure if this is the case in those without title page photos.
only two books are not related to "Henry Holt (co., inc., llc...", both on the 51420 variation, checked them (by isbn) on the net and they belong to the same publisher. So it is the same company on both owls.

I have changed the earlier Credit to "Owl Books" and moved the books with the older entry to there. https://books.discogs.com/credit/51420-owl-books marked as a duplicate.

I think there should be more discussion about name variations and when they are allowed to co-exist as separate entries, and when not. Currently the situation is really inconsistent.

For this
1. we should have more active submitters,
2. needed more submissions as examples.
Finally, years later we will get endless discussions about issues to and fro without final CLEAR decisions, like on Discogs. :-(
But you're right, maybe we should wait for other opinions here. A week can be enough?

Making independent forum topics makes us crazy, it is very hard to find anything in the forum, it is still in low version here. We should start an extra topic for discussion about how to discuss. :-D

While there's anarchy here, no one can be blamed for not following anything other users decide. Why decide then? If tomorrow the owner decides to dump everything that's not music-themed at least the material will become a lot easier to organize.

I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, and my comment was more of a general nature about just how inconsistently these are handled throughout the database. We have some huge entries for seemingly the same imprint, some of them discussed in the forums, but then when you try to apply the same logic to other imprints, they get merged as duplicates. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

As someone who tries their best to avoid creating duplicates, I'd like to understand the full logic how these are handled.

Books are like everything else, inconsistant, a similar issue is Star / Star Books:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/222973-star-2
https://books.discogs.com/credit/220550-star-book

with this book quoting both:
https://books.discogs.com/book/222970-getting-even

Discogs can take forever or not at all for changes to be made. Hence I noticed instead of asking for agreement before a change is made some users asking if anyone disagrees. If hardly anyone replies they then make the change! At least its quicker here.

It is tricky there are limited companies with exactly the same name but are in fact different entities (incorporated at a different date). But that would be a minefield to actually correct.

I agree it's great how easily things can be fixed here. Discogs can be such a pain, and so counter-productive. I am really glad it's not that difficult here.

I'm not asking the books to be consistent, I'm asking us to be consistent in the way we handle imprints. But I know that might be too much to ask. :P

It is tricky there are limited companies with exactly the same name but are in fact different entities (incorporated at a different date). But that would be a minefield to actually correct.

Yeah, and if I remember correctly, we had a discussion about this issue in Discogs a long time ago, and decided that they don't need to be separated as it just complicates things for everyone. The timeline can be explained in the profile, if it's necessary, but often we don't need to be aware of every restructuring move a company has made.

An "Alias" function like the one on Discogs would relax the current situation.

This was my research path:

I did a search for An Owl Book and everything I found named the imprint as Owl Books, and a couple of sites described it as a "trade paperback imprint" of Henry Holt and Company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Holt_and_Company
http://dougstanton.com/about-henry-holt-company-llc/
http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/holt/holt.htm
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_Holt_%26_Co.
https://www.amazon.com/1949-Publisher-Books-Henry-Company/dp/B004X2HJDW

However, the Henry Holt and Company website does not list Owl Books as an imprint: https://us.macmillan.com/henryholt

There were two books listed with the Credit Owl Book (26869):
https://books.discogs.com/book/546658-labyrinth-the-photo-album
https://books.discogs.com/book/1535-they-shoot-canoes-dont-they

The actual credit states "An Owl Book" which is verifiable as both subs have images that show the actual credit.

There were two books attributed to Owl Books (51420) which had ambiguous credits: https://books.discogs.com/book/51418-the-devils-teeth (images show credit both as "An Owl Book" and "Owl Books")
https://books.discogs.com/book/258870-the-complete-benoni (images show credit as "An Owl Book")

There were four more books attributed to Owl Books (51420) which didn't have images that could verify the credit:
https://books.discogs.com/book/283289-fight-club
https://books.discogs.com/book/218335-hegemony-or-survival
https://books.discogs.com/book/628090-last-gang-in-town-the-story-and-myth-of-the-clash
https://books.discogs.com/book/593334-the-commissar-vanishes-the-falsification-of-photographs-and-art-in-stalins-russia

So in total, there were three books that verifiably credit An Owl Book, one that could go either way, and four that weren't verifiable.

Based on the information that I found on websites I decided that the imprint name should be Owl Books, and An Owl Book is a name variation of that, therefore I kept the Credit Owl Books and NV'd the books that credited An Owl Book to it.

If anyone feels that "An Owl Book" is a registered imprint of Henry Holt and Company, then feel free to create that Credit.

On that basis, a lot of my Penguin Books state "A Penguin Book", maybe we should consider creating a Credit for that!

Owl Books was not really the point, and I wasn't questioning the decision. The trademark is registered in the US as "An Owl Book", but as it's also called Owl Books on the books, I have nothing against going with that name. As far as I'm concerned, either way is fine.

Like I said, my comment was more of a general nature. I wish there was some more room for discussion/comments, even if just a little, and that there would be a better consensus on when to create a separate entry and when not.

Let's take a relatively simple example**
https://books.discogs.com/credit/42387-harvest
https://books.discogs.com/credit/132073-harvest-books
https://books.discogs.com/credit/21244-a-harvest-book

This is not an unusual situation at all, and IMVHO we should have just one entry. But there seems to be some disagreement on whether these type of variations should be merged or not, even when they can be proven to be one and the same.

(**Interestingly enough the biggest entry ('Harvest Books') seems to be an uncommon variation (if not non-existent). I know the reasons for why some would call it that, but it also seems to be at least a partial reason for the other entries.)

In an ideal world it would be great to get more input on all of these Forum discussions, but realistically there are not many users who contribute their opinion. I know language might be a barrier for some and others might not have the time. That is not critiscm just an observation. Would you prefer me to wait longer in future before making a response? I'm easy.

I tend to think in most cases "A XXX Book" is a marketing term rather than an imprint (I know there might be exceptions).

I research each of these duplicate issues and formulate an opinion. If I get it wrong then nothing is set in concrete and I am happy to make amends if someone proves otherwise.

Yesterday, I merged John Slasek and John T. Slasek without discussion, but I discovered that most books credit him as John Slasek (I went the opposite way until I discovered that was wrong). I based my decision on how we treat Brian Aldiss and the NV Brian W. Aldiss. I didn't think it needed debating.

John Sladek. I was thinking of someone I know.

I know language might be a barrier for some and others might not have the time.

I think expertise is a big problem besides language. Its really hard to translate all the vocabulary like "Imprint", "Colophon", etc., if English is not your native language. The language to correctly express yourself here is no school English, if you know what i mean. I read a lot of English books but i still had to do a lot of research on vocabulary when i started working here.

Understanding databases is another heavy thing for a lot of people. I work as a teacher and i do home schooling for my students at the moment. We use a cloud solution and the biggest problem for the average student (or students parents in most cases) is, how to upload a file to a folder. Most of them use Smartphones, Tablets etc all day and are not "digitaly unexperienced".

The solution is in my opionion, to be very patient and generous when people do mistakes and try to answer questions soon. There is not much more you can do against.

I did qualify my statement by saying it was not a criticism but an observation.

I fully understand and sympathize with the problems non-English speaking users have with the site (or for that matter people are not overly tech savvy). Trying to follow a discussion in the Forum would be difficult and conducting research in another language is a nightmare. I have done it a few times and it is near impossible to make a judgement relying on the services of Google translate.

The site has a small pool of active users and many of them are non-English speakers, so it stands to reason that the number of users getting involved in Forum discussions is minimal.

I suppose that's why I feel obliged to add my opinions even though the topic might not be something that I am particularly interested in. One thing I do enjoy about Bookogs is the continual research into topics that I previously knew nothing about and then rapidly forget about again.

If tomorrow the owner decides to dump everything that's not music-themed

OMG, I hope don't. That would be a nightmare because of the lots of working hours here.

to be very patient and generous when people do mistakes and try to answer questions soon

It is a very important thing I think. This happened with me when I got help almost without I asked from a submitter and now I know for example what is the difference between Publisher and Imprint, etc. You can't find it in dictionaries.

An "Alias" function like the one on Discogs would relax the current situation.

I think this DB get so big that it is time to develop it more but as I see, seems like sometimes we are children without parents in the jungle.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/583381-future-publishing
and
https://books.discogs.com/credit/597583-future-publishing-limited
are the same company IMHO. UK based publisher company, i would use Future Publishing Ltd. as credit and using NVs
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02008885
In a 2018 magazine it appears as:
Future Publishing Ltd, Quay House, The Ambury,
Bath BA1 1UA, United Kingdom
tel +44 (0) 1225 442244
email opm@futurenet.com twitter @OPM_UK
web www.gamesradar.com/opm

And found the parent? company here with the same address but the company titled as Future plc.:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/121392-future-publishing
Future plc. Reg No 3757874 England. Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA

It is standard practice to treat the publisher name and the registered company name as separate Credits.

I am still dissatisfied with the result, as i mentioned previously, i found two versions of the company name in one magazine, see image uploded here
1. Future Publishing Ltd
2. Future Publishing Limited
OK, Future Publishing Limited is already appears in the DB, we should use NV with Future Publishing Ltd if i think correct. Or? I would like to thank you if you could add a grammarly correct description to the credit page and an extended profile for the "PLC" credit with a bold comment "do not confuse..., what to use" this way submitters will know which they should to use. There are already 500 submissions under the credit. Once when i submitted a Hungarian edition, i know i was clearly confused with the company.
Thanks

I have read your comment numerous times and I have written various replies and each time I conclude that I don't really understand the question. Feel free to PM me and hopefully we can work it out.

I have read your comment numerous times and I have written various replies and each time I conclude that I don't really understand the question. Feel free to PM me and hopefully we can work it out.

This could happen when i write before my morning coffee. I will send a PM. orry guys.

No need to be sorry. I hope I have answered your questions, if not keep asking them.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/279262-flag (2 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/212757-flag-tonuzi (3 entries, but 2 are ANV'd 'Flag')

So basically 4 entries for Flag and one for Flag Tonuzi.

No website I can't find with much info and 'Flag' is too vague to search under to see if he uses it more.

I have moved the 2 books credited to Flag Tonuzi that used Flag NVs to the Credit Flag.

What I have established is that Flag Tonuzi is Flamur "Flag" Tonuzi who has an additional Credit: https://books.discogs.com/credit/445086-flamur-tonuzi

According to http://henryseneyee.blogspot.com/2009/03/ he is described as Art Director at Grand Central Publishing which links back to https://books.discogs.com/book/639882-titanics-last-secrets (NV Flag).

So we have 3 Credits for the same person. Maybe we should create Flamur "Flag" Tonuzi and NV everything to that. I await other opinions.

I made a mistake:

According to http://henryseneyee.blogspot.com/2009/03/ he is described as Art Director at Grand Central Publishing which links back to https://books.discogs.com/book/639882-titanics-last-secrets (credited as Flag).

thethrowback wrote:

I have moved the 2 books credited to Flag Tonuzi that used Flag NVs to the Credit Flag.

What I have established is that Flag Tonuzi is Flamur "Flag" Tonuzi who has an additional Credit: https://books.discogs.com/credit/445086-flamur-tonuzi

According to http://henryseneyee.blogspot.com/2009/03/ he is described as Art Director at Grand Central Publishing which links back to https://books.discogs.com/book/639882-titanics-last-secrets (NV Flag).

So we have 3 Credits for the same person. Maybe we should create Flamur "Flag" Tonuzi and NV everything to that. I await other opinions.

Thanks for that, I couldn't seem to find much!

Maybe keep real name and 'Flag' with a DNU on Flag Tonuzi?

Maybe keep real name and 'Flag' with a DNU on Flag Tonuzi?

Yes, I would go with that.

His website lists his name as J.P. Targete: http://www.targeteart.com/

Dutch rock band
https://books.discogs.com/credit/619051-q-65 (3 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/752533-q65 (10 entries)

If you look at their own LPs and 7"s the cover seems to vary but the labels do seem to indicate a gap between the 'Q' and the '65'. Problem is it varies as to what fills the gap. Keep Q65 to keep it simple?

https://www.discogs.com/artist/282878-Q65

Usually i prefer to use always the earlier credit but this time I suggest to use the second option what match to Discogs as well as to Wikipedia too. IMHO.

I don't think anyone really knew the correct name of the band as it varies from release to release.

I would opt for Q65 as it is probably the easiest to find and as foxmulder pointed out it is consistent with Discogs.

I'm still waiting for a decision on https://books.discogs.com/credit/70144-jean-targete and https://books.discogs.com/credit/124528-jean-pierre-targete Does anyone have an opinion?

thethrowback wrote:

I'm still waiting for a decision on https://books.discogs.com/credit/70144-jean-targete and https://books.discogs.com/credit/124528-jean-pierre-targete Does anyone have an opinion?

As I see, this graphical artist has a contact option on his website. What would you think if we would ask him what would be the best solution for him, personally? :-)
http://www.targeteart.com/page1.html

I think his own websites are pretty clear of his own preference...

J.P. Targete - http://www.targeteart.com/
J.P. Targete - https://twitter.com/jptargete
J.P. Targete - https://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/instructors/j-p-targete
J.P. Targete - https://www.facebook.com/ArtofJPTargete/
JP Targete - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jp-targete-8898657/
JP Targete - https://www.artstation.com/jptargete
JP Targete - https://www.deviantart.com/targete
Jp Targete - https://www.instagram.com/jptargeteart/

Plus he has published an art book and a sketch book under J.P. Targete.

I'd go with either Jean Pierre or J.P.

Hamlyn Publishing Group, Ltd. https://books.discogs.com/credit/60931-hamlyn-publishing-group-ltd (18 entries)
The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd https://books.discogs.com/credit/222611-the-hamlyn-publishing-group-ltd (42 entries)

I'd go for newer entry as its official name begins with "The", with a DNU on the earlier one.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00521989

Yes, go with https://books.discogs.com/credit/222611-the-hamlyn-publishing-group-ltd

I managed to get the 18 entries down to 13 by verifying the name in images.

thethrowback wrote:

Yes, go with https://books.discogs.com/credit/222611-the-hamlyn-publishing-group-ltd

I managed to get the 18 entries down to 13 by verifying the name in images.

Thanks, I've now moved the rest.

detum wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/255107-black-metal
https://books.discogs.com/credit/737837-black-metal

Moved to earlier Black Metal credit and later one marked as 'Duplicate'

It is because of a bug, it is necessary to wait to the system to find the credit.
Or if you change the order in the credit list in a new submission where you added new credits too, the system creates dupe(s). Grr...

Patience is the key. Until the system provides a list of possible duplicates (watch the little spinning disc until it disappears) then it is not safe to create a new Credit.

The bug that occurs when changing the order by dragging Credits, links, etc. is a trap.

I have found it easier to change the order in Credits by clicking on the 'Reorder Credits' button for longer than normal; this opens a small menu that allows you to nominate the position number that you want to move the Credit to. It just requires a bit of counting.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/72584-peter-jones-2 9 credits
https://books.discogs.com/credit/145686-peter-andrew-jones 20 credits
https://books.discogs.com/credit/642772-peter-a-jones 2 credits

Judging by the links (as well as the credits) Peter Andrew Jones is what he is often referred to so move to that one?

Maybe put a hyperlink on the first Peter Jones credit (poetry chap). Delete Peter A. Jones or a DNU?

I would just keep https://books.discogs.com/credit/145686-peter-andrew-jones which is the most frequent credit.

I would add a hyperlink for Peter Andrew Jones to https://books.discogs.com/credit/47306-peter-jones

Delete Peter A. Jones or a DNU?

DNU as it might stop someone from creating a duplicate.

While we are on Peter Jones, can we lose the suffix numbers from
https://books.discogs.com/credit/173611-peter-jones-3
https://books.discogs.com/credit/673513-peter-jones-4
We have dates, profiles and photos that should be suffcient to distinguish. Suffix numbers are a clumsy carryover from Discogs that serve no real purpose here.

We have dates, profiles and photos that should be suffcient to distinguish. Suffix numbers are a clumsy carryover from Discogs that serve no real purpose here.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, especially in cases when there are dates and photos, but unfortunately not all users agree.
https://books.discogs.com/forum/530564-credit-name-indentifiers

We have dates, profiles and photos that should be suffcient to distinguish

That is the best case scenario, what happens when none of those are available? e.g. first variation of Peter Jones: https://books.discogs.com/credit/47306-peter-jones

The Bookogs database is still in its infancy, but in time there will be multiple variations and like on Discogs, these might reach triple figures.

There has been a push to add a description as a suffix, but what happens when there are 45 editors with the same name in the database? You would have to write an essay to differentiate each one (assuming that the points of difference are even known).

but unfortunately not all users agree

I am still waiting for someone to present a better system. When they do, I will embrace it with open arms.

I think it's not wrong to use one of the entries with a popular name as a collection of any credits where nothing is really known about the actual person except just name. Description would say smt. like 'Use this credit for John Doe when you can't confirm which of the well known John Does is credited.' Users willing to solve tricky authority cases can then do their research on proper attribution. I believe it's a better scenario than starting a new John Doe credit entry every time we have a slight suspicion he's not among the existing ones.

I think it's not wrong to use one of the entries with a popular name as a collection of any credits where nothing is really known about the actual person except just name.

Yeah, there are libraries that do that, and it might be something worth discussing. Though most of the time there's at least one thing that can be used: the role the person is credited for.

That's why we've been trying to push for a short description field that would be also displayed in search results. It would help with the identification a lot, especially when it comes to the more obscure credits.

Maybe it should be also considered to display the automatically assigned ID numbers in search results. They are kinda hidden at the moment (in the URL), and maybe that's why people feel the need to have an extra numerical suffix.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/30104-estuary-english 9 entries (no ANVs)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/30105-estuaryenglish 3 entries

Must have both been added the same day. I prefer EstuaryEnglish but other one is more popular.

This book has both versions:
https://books.discogs.com/book/18254-the-peel-sessions

http://www.estuaryenglish.co.uk
https://www.discogs.com/artist/2069864-Estuary-English (also has a space)

Estuary English:
I found on the webpage the copyright info this way: "© Estuary English 2020".
I think without space it is just a "design" version, with space is an "official" version, see also how the company registered:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05306768/officers

QUANTUM vs NUCLEAR
Now i remember it was about "quantum" issue but i don't find the forum page.
I think we should make an order here, credits are qrowing:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/482429-quantum-mechanics
https://books.discogs.com/credit/680914-quantum-physics
https://books.discogs.com/credit/551675-quantum-theory

and a bonus:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/628586-quantum-entanglement

thethrowback wrote:

You are right, quantum mechanics is a specific branch of quantum physics, however in English at least, the two terms have become interchangeable. I just wonder if the books that use the Credit "quantum mechanics" are actually about that subject, but I suppose you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the submitters.

I suggest keeping Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics. The profile of Quantum Mechanics would state that it relates only to that specific subject and for the broader subject refer to Quantum Physics. How does that sound?

in this thread, 1 month ago

Thanks! If i understood correctly, Quantum Theory and Quantum Physics are the same. This way should we merge "Theory" editions with the "Physics" credit?
Additionally, I checked Wikipedia where appears: "Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory,...".
We have Quantum Mechanics credit as well. If we follow what Wiki says, all of the three credit can be merged into one what is the "Quantum Mechanics" (what is the oldest credit, by the way). Interesting... :-)

I'd go for Nuclear Power.

Doesn't look like you need a DNU on Nuclear Energy.

foxmulder wrote:

If i understood correctly, Quantum Theory and Quantum Physics are the same. This way should we merge "Theory" editions with the "Physics" credit?
Additionally, I checked Wikipedia where appears: "Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory,...".
We have Quantum Mechanics credit as well. If we follow what Wiki says, all of the three credit can be merged into one what is the "Quantum Mechanics" (what is the oldest credit, by the way). Interesting... :-)

Personally, I would prefer the way thethrowback suggested, as Wikipedia's description is a little simplified.

Quantum blah blah.

Goodness gracious, that was something I was supposed to do and completely forgot about. Pretty much how I dealt with Physics homework. Some things never change.

westpier wrote:

I'd go for Nuclear Power.

Doesn't look like you need a DNU on Nuclear Energy.

I'll do, thanks!

BadMoon wrote:

Personally, I would prefer the way thethrowback suggested, as Wikipedia's description is a little simplified.

It's upon you guys, it is a difficult question for me (because my English, too). I met with this question again at
this issue of the SA magazine
as a curiosity I checked the articles and I found these expressions and the occurrences are:
Quantum Gravity: 44x, Quantum Theory: 23x, Quantum Mechanics: 9x, Quantum Physics: 3times. :-)
Maybe my credit is for the Quantum Gravity, what would be a very new credit HAHA!

https://books.discogs.com/credit/478652-venice-international-film-festival
https://books.discogs.com/credit/779625-mostra-internazionale-darte-cinematografica
https://books.discogs.com/credit/747381-mostra-del-cinema-di-venezia

I found the first credit after I set the profile for the second. Always questionable to use the original language title, in this case in English we have "Venice Film Festival" or "Venice International Film Festival". I suggest to use the first credit with the title "International" and I would merge the 2nd and the 3rd with this. Thanks

https://books.discogs.com/credit/779625-mostra-internazionale-darte-cinematografica and https://books.discogs.com/credit/747381-mostra-del-cinema-di-venezia marked as duplicates.

As for Quantum Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Physics; I feel they are interchangeable terms for the same thing. Probably the reason I didn't complete the merge was I couldn't find a definition that differentiates Quantum Mechanics from Quantum Theory/Quantum Physics.

If there is a user that understands the subject maybe they would like to add a profile and make the necessary changes.

Quantum Theory and Quantum Physics are quite the same and obsolete theories (like the Bohr model and Planck's law) would fit into this too. Quantum mechanics is a specific theory.
Like all paperbacks are books but not all books are paperbacks.

I looked high and low for a definition of Quantum Mechanics that differentiates it from Quantum Theory/Quantum Physics and I couldn't, so again if there is a user who is able to provide this information then go for it.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/314900-taunton-press
https://books.discogs.com/credit/691445-the-taunton-press-inc
Wikipedia: Taunton Press, Logo: The Taunton Press
Official: The Taunton Press: https://www.taunton.com/about-us/
I suggest to use the title with "The" (of course with renaming the original credit 3114900). Thanks

Also a reference uploded This way we have the publisher and the company as The Taunton Press and The Taunton Press, Inc.

I have renamed https://books.discogs.com/credit/314900-the-taunton-press as The Taunton Press as there were a couple of attributions with images that verified the Credit.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/691445-the-taunton-press-inc is the legal company name so it is also a legitimate Credit.

Thanks^^^
https://books.discogs.com/credit/379002-brain
https://books.discogs.com/credit/608134-brain
I wanted to add "Brain" (human brain) as an 'about' credit (the first credit match to this criteria, I think).

I have changed https://books.discogs.com/credit/379002-human-brain to Human Brain as both books are specifically about that subject.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/608134-brain is a German record label.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/70834-comet
https://books.discogs.com/credit/570814-comet

They aren't duplicates. I have added a profile to the grafitti artist and a generic image.

foxmulder wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/377031-giacomo-girolamo-casanova
https://books.discogs.com/credit/549787-giacomo-casanova
Suggested to live the first, the earlier, of course. Thanks

The earlier Giacomo Girolamo Casanova his name appears as:
Giacomo Casanova x2 (on cover)
Giacomo Casanova x1 (inside book ANV)
G. G. Casanova (on cover)

Also listed in Wiki as Giacomo Casanova, though i don't really know much about him. You could amend the earlier version to Giacomo Casanova and move the other two over.

Done, thank you. NVs checked.

Peter Udo Pinzel is the best match on Google too.

If you are certain it is the same person then I would go with 50435.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/716957-jens-martin-meyer marked as duplicate.

According to Wikipedia, Econ Verlag GmbH relocated its head office from Dusseldorf to Berlin in 2004, so two credits might be justified: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econ_Verlag

Kept https://books.discogs.com/credit/75318-hildendesign and removed the city as the company only has an office in Munich, and added a profile and image.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/740895-twentieth-foc-film-corporation marked as duplicate

https://books.discogs.com/credit/740893-random-house-childrens-books marked as duplicate. It is beyond me why this site can't treat ’ and ' the same.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/71045-akg-images (38 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/604465-akg-images (11 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/552142-akg-berlin (6 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/527014-akg-london (3 entries)

It uses the hypen AKG-Images on its website so suggest moving the 11 entries from AKG Images. Not sure about the AKG, Berlin or AKG, London entries.

https://www.akg-images.co.uk/about_us

westpier wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/71045-akg-images (38 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/604465-akg-images (11 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/552142-akg-berlin (6 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/527014-akg-london (3 entries)

It uses the hypen AKG-Images on its website so suggest moving the 11 entries from AKG Images. Not sure about the AKG, Berlin or AKG, London entries.

Of the two "images" the one with the hyphen is obviously correct. As "Berlin" refers to the original company / headquarter, the six entries could be moved too, with a NV added. The London office (even though a subsidiary) is a registered company and should be kept separated.

BadMoon wrote:

westpier wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/71045-akg-images (38 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/604465-akg-images (11 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/552142-akg-berlin (6 entries)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/527014-akg-london (3 entries)

It uses the hypen AKG-Images on its website so suggest moving the 11 entries from AKG Images. Not sure about the AKG, Berlin or AKG, London entries.

Of the two "images" the one with the hyphen is obviously correct. As "Berlin" refers to the original company / headquarter, the six entries could be moved too, with a NV added. The London office (even though a subsidiary) is a registered company and should be kept separated.

Thanks, sorted them out now.

Need opinions:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/362139-mpm-wasserburg
https://books.discogs.com/credit/735530-mpm-reitmehring

It is definately the same company, Reitmehring is a village in Bavaria and since 1978 (the credited book is printed in 1990) a district of Wasserburg (the actual city is about three and a half kilometers away), the same postal code.

I've just found out, that I myself submitted a book two years ago and put MPM Reitmehring as NV on MPM Wasserburg.

I believe the company has only been in one place and the company name is MPM-Wasserburg located in Reitmehring.

MPM-Wasserburg KG
Am Glasberg 7
83512 Reitmehring

As I said, 83512 is the postal code of Wasserburg, Reitmehring is a district of the city of Wasserburg, so the one place is not really the question.
MPM-Wasserburg KG (founded 2001, erased 2005) was seemingly an asset management company after the "producing" part was discontinued and/or sold.

Could always consider just going with MPM, and enter the location variations to the profile?

That's how it's done in Discogs, see for example:
https://www.discogs.com/label/291436-One-On-One-Studios

Or were the locations officially part of the name?

Here are the links for my research. Make of it what you can:

https://www.webvalid.de/company/MPM-Wasserburg+KG,+Reitmehring/HRA+7461
https://firma-online.org/db/MPM-Wasserburg_KG

What I was trying to establish with my comment about the company always being in Reitmehring (which as BadMoon pointed out is a town in the district of Wasserburg in Bavaria), is the inclusion of Reitmehring in the company name is unnecessary. This would only have relevance if this company had more than one office or at some stage moved from one location to another. That does not seem to be the case.

It appears the company name is "MPM-Wasserburg KG".

As I have previously commented, my German language skills are almost non-existent and I rely on Google translate which has its limitations.

I understood that MPM-Wasserburg KG was a different company, founded after the other in 2001. The books we have are from late 1980s and 1990s.

thethrowback wrote:

https://www.webvalid.de/company/MPM-Wasserburg+KG,+Reitmehring/HRA+7461
https://firma-online.org/db/MPM-Wasserburg_KG

What I was trying to establish with my comment about the company always being in Reitmehring (which as BadMoon pointed out is a town in the district of Wasserburg in Bavaria), is the inclusion of Reitmehring in the company name is unnecessary. This would only have relevance if this company had more than one office or at some stage moved from one location to another. That does not seem to be the case.

Well almost, Reitmehring is a village that was merged to the town of Wasserburg, similar to Brooklyn > New York.
But do we want to avoid the inclusion of the location (if not part of the company name) on credits generally as auboisdormant suggested? I guess, lots of users will not do so much research and just put in what is credited on the item.

It appears the company name is "MPM-Wasserburg KG".

this was probably a management company founded in 2001, not the original typesetter. Someone from the family of the operator(s) of MPM had (at least temporarily) a towing service at the address

As I have previously commented, my German language skills are almost non-existent and I rely on Google translate which has its limitations.

You're doing very well and Google translate is like my personal assistant ;)

auboisdormant wrote:

Could always consider just going with MPM, and enter the location variations to the profile?

That's how it's done in Discogs, see for example:
https://www.discogs.com/label/291436-One-On-One-Studios

Is this a general rule at Discogs? There are lots of companies and credits that include the location without it being official part of the name.
I like the idea but, as I've said before, most users will just put in what is written on the item.

My apologies, as I misunderstood your comment regarding "a district of Wasserburg". I should have looked at a map.

No reason to apologise, we all have the same goal here and if ambiguities (I had to google this one ;) ) can be solved jointly, life and bookogs are easier for everyone.

BadMoon wrote:

Is this a general rule at Discogs? There are lots of companies and credits that include the location without it being official part of the name.

Yeah, the general rule is to list the location(s) only in the profile.

The location can be included in the credit name in some cases, since for companies and recording studios, it was decided the location would be a better separator than the numerical suffix. It should be only used when the name is very generic, or there's another company/studio with the same name (4.3.2.)

In general IMO the credit name should be just for the person/company name. Other things (such as suffixes and locations) should be only added if needed.

I like that, should have been done from the beginning.
In some cases, increased attention and detailed research would be required, but thats no big difference to the actual situation.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/443766-myanmar
https://books.discogs.com/credit/536732-burma

Keep Burma or merge with Myanmar?

I guess at some point there will be the same issue with Czech Republic and Czechia.

That is an interesting situation as we create various Credits for companies to reflect historical name changes, should that also apply to countries? I'm easy.

"Redirected from"

https://books.discogs.com/credit/34159-immediate-media-company-limited
https://books.discogs.com/credit/34190-immediate-media-company-london-limited
https://books.discogs.com/credit/758289-immediate-media-company-bristol-limited
IMHO the first two are the same. Hard to tell what about the third credit. London<>Bristol.
Uploded a detail from a magazine:
BBC Focus Magazine is published by Immediate Media Company London Limited under licence from BBC Studios who help fund new BBC programmes.
© Immediate Media Co Bristol Ltd 2018.

foxmulder wrote:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/34159-immediate-media-company-limited
https://books.discogs.com/credit/34190-immediate-media-company-london-limited
https://books.discogs.com/credit/758289-immediate-media-company-bristol-limited
IMHO the first two are the same. Hard to tell what about the third credit. London<>Bristol.
Uploded a detail from a magazine:
BBC Focus Magazine is published by Immediate Media Company London Limited under licence from BBC Studios who help fund new BBC programmes.
© Immediate Media Co Bristol Ltd 2018.

All three are separate legal entities, even though they have the same registered office and directors. If the place name comes before "Limited" then it is part of the company name.
Immediate Media Company Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07635200
Immediate Media Company Bristol Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05715415
Immediate Media Company Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06189487
Companies House also lists
Immediate Media TV Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09794211
And a number of dissolved companies with similar names.
Immediate Media Company Magicalia Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03828584
Immediate Media Company Magicalia Holdings Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05780320
Immediate Media Company Origin Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03406699
Immediate Media Company Origin Holdings Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05739044
Immediate Media Company Services Limited https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05723097

Thanks for the sources, this way there are no duplicates here. I correct my sub this way.

The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles - originally, in my own head, I had it down as a series:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/587527-british-hit-singles

But then saw it listed as a 'works' and the publisher does seem to treat it as such eg. reprints, edition number etc. So remove the series? Unless there is another reason to keep it.

https://books.discogs.com/work/435872-the-guinness-book-of-british-hit-singles

I'll get back to dupe countries at another date!

westpier wrote:

The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles - originally, in my own head, I had it down as a series:

https://books.discogs.com/credit/587527-british-hit-singles

But then saw it listed as a 'works' and the publisher does seem to treat it as such eg. reprints, edition number etc. So remove the series? Unless there is another reason to keep it.

https://books.discogs.com/work/435872-the-guinness-book-of-british-hit-singles

I'll get back to dupe countries at another date!

I would agree it is not a series. Each successive edition is an update to the previous one. Series would imply a number of separate and distint works with a connecting element.

I agree that it is not a Series. It is simply a book that has been revised and updated 10 times.

I knew I shouldn't have quantified those editions. I see it is currently at 19.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/420320-dynamo (4 credits)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/483761-dynamo-design (10 credits with 4 more to add)

The issue with this one is the company was incorporated as Dynamo Ltd:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/473785-dynamo-limited

So the 'official' name might be Dynamo (see logo on Design Ltd). DNU on Dynamo Design?

This lot need to be split and added as well:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/464991-steve-richards-dynamo-design

I think the official name is Dynamo Limited. The 'Limited' is included in the logo if you look closely enough. ;-)

http://www.dynamo.site/
https://www.facebook.com/DynamoLimited
https://twitter.com/DynamoLimited
https://www.linkedin.com/company/dynamo-limited/about/

Those Steve Richards/Dynamo Design Credits are all for Copyright Holder (Cover/Jacket Art). That raises the question whether it should be treated that way or split into the separate components. I am happy to go either way.

thethrowback wrote:

Those Steve Richards/Dynamo Design Credits are all for Copyright Holder (Cover/Jacket Art). That raises the question whether it should be treated that way or split into the separate components. I am happy to go either way.

If I see them I've been splitting them, though i haven't seen that many. Only exception is photo archive one's which still baffle me.

Thanks for the info auboisdormant, I'll move them over.

You could be right as it is unlikely that Steve Richards/Dynamo Design Credits is a legal entity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "photo archive". Are you referring to something like "Getty Images/John Smith"? If you are, then I always split these into their component parts. Whether that is correct is another matter.

No, when two archives are credited together (rather than the photographer / archive) just went through a magazine with a lot of Rex / Shutterstock.

No, when two archives are credited together

In the example you give, Rex is currently owned by Shutterstock which was not always the case.

It comes down to interpretation, but you could treat Rex/Shutterstock as a separate Credit as it is an historical phase of the company. If at some stage the Rex collection is sold, then it might become something else.

Re: Farrow

I notice the website lists the contact as Farrow, so it could be a legitimate separate Credit. I would just cross-reference the two using hyperlinks.

It would be a different situation if we had an efficient name variation function.

Several of the books attributed to https://books.discogs.com/credit/136701-farrow have images and they confirm the books show the credit as Farrow.

https://books.discogs.com/credit/605869-glen-a-baker (2 photo credits)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/666295-glenn-a-baker (1 photo, 1 contributor credit)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/243630-glenn-a-baker-archives (2 photo credits)

It appears the Australian music writer owned a photo archive, though whether this counts as 'ownership' of the photo's I'm not sure

Also here:
https://www.discogs.com/artist/468002-Glenn-A-Baker
https://www.discogs.com/artist/5160252-The-Glenn-A-Baker-Archives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_A._Baker (no mention of photo archive)

The 'archive' includes photo's from 1960s ie. Baker was born in 1952, so too young to have taken them himself. Also, apart from the 'credits' themselves I can't find any info on a photographer called this.

Should all photo credits be moved to https://books.discogs.com/credit/243630-glenn-a-baker-archives ?

It is not impossible that Glenn A. Baker has taken the photos, he has probably been to more rock concerts than I have had hot dinners. I can confirm that he has an enormous archive.

I have marked https://books.discogs.com/credit/605869-glen-a-baker as I believe it is simply a spelling error (one of the books has an image that confirms it is shown that way).

I have modified the profile of the archives Credit and added hyperlinks to his Credit and the archives Credit

Use of terms like 'Archive' or 'Collection' usually imply that the work was acquired rather than created by the copyright holder. It can be subject to challenge if, say, the original photographer appears and claims copyright.

Thanks for your input. He just seemed to 'own' a real hotpotch if images, but there was a picture of Brian Jones in 1967 credited to him rather than his archive. So i first I thought it was a different person with the same name.

What sonnyboythird says is correct. Sometime ago I saw an article on television about Glenn A. Baker and it showed his archive and it is like a warehouse. One article describes him as "the owner of one of the most extensive music archives in the world." That doesn't mean he took every photo, but I'm certain that he has taken some.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.