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.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.