Ginger and Pickles


Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Ginger and Pickles

Editado: Maio 20, 10:27 am

This is a work by Beatrix Potter.

If I understand this correctly, in 1987, a new method/rendering of the illustrations was utilized and authorized as "original".

the words haven't changed the illustrations haven't changed.

i found a few copies that i wanted to combine- but there is this notice:

""The reproductions in this book have been made using the most modern electronic scanning methods from entirely new transparencies of Beatrix Potter's original watercolors. ... This edition with new reproductions first published 1987." T.p verso"

Is it someone's intent that post 1987 versions are to be separated from pre-1987 versions? If so, I can only imagine that has failed.

I removed adaptations.

is it safe to combine all copies that are not adaptations?

Maio 20, 10:30 am

>1 EGBERTINA: That is not information that needs to be in the disambiguation notice field. I have removed it. If the text of the different editions is mostly the same and the illustrations are mostly the same there is no reason to keep them separated.

Maio 20, 10:30 am

Editado: Maio 21, 4:14 am

>2 norabelle414: While I agree that the note about the new reproductions does not "need" to be in the disambiguation notice I think it is a pity that it has been deleted. The information is not without interest to a collector of Beatrix Potter's books in all their many editions.

I think we can afford to be relaxed and unprescriptive about what is in CK.

In passing, I do wonder why the dedicatee of Ginger and Pickles, John Taylor, stayed in bed for three years.

Maio 20, 12:00 pm

>4 abbottthomas: But once the works are combined that information will only apply to some of the editions in the work so there is really no place for it in the work record.

Maio 20, 5:49 pm

>4 abbottthomas: It's in the history, and you're welcome to put it somewhere else if you want. But it doesn't belong in the disambiguation notice field.

Maio 20, 8:07 pm

i agree that it is of interest - but could be placed elsewhere. i found it confusing as a disambiguation- because we aren't supposed to merge things when they tell us not to.

if there isn't already a better slot - perhaps we can make one. i love to read interesting tidbits about the history of books. i wish we could tell more about their histories.