ISFDB talk:Data Consistency/Novel-Collection Mismatches

It might be noted that more than a few of these inconsistencies were caused by an omnibus being typed as a collection. Simply changing the type to "omnibus" would correct most of the inconsistencies. One problem that might arise is when a novel has been reprinted under the same title with one or two short stories as a bonus, thus making the new publication an omnibus. Some editors might insist that this should be considered a collection. All of this is based on my personal definition of an omnibus as any publication that contains at least one full length novel. And the help pages are somewhat ambiguous in its definition. Any comments? Mhhutchins 21:43, 11 Jan 2008 (CST)


 * IIRC, the last time we had this discussion, we ended up with so many potential permutations and combinations (e.g. "1 novel + 1 story" vs. "1 novel + 1 excerpt") that no firm rule could be established that wouldn't result in some weird side effect. I think the Help pages ended up being deliberately ambiguous to give editors some leeway in this area, although I may be misremembering some details. Ahasuerus 22:27, 11 Jan 2008 (CST)


 * IMHO 'omnibus' is '2 or more existing book titles or publications reprinted together as one book'. I would regard 'a novel + 2 stories' as a collection, but 2 older collections reprinted together as an omnibus (provided they are published as they were previously, i.e. not mixed together and reordered). The 'titles or publications' is important because sometimes a publication includes a foreword or an afterword which may or may not be reprinted. --Roglo 04:43, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)