Cox And Wyman Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19449-Cox-And-Wyman-Ltd

Cox & Wyman Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/22107-Cox-Wyman-Ltd

Cox & Wyman Ltd.
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/31155-Cox-Wyman-Ltd

Cox & Wyman Limited
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/25939-Cox-Wyman-Limited

Cox & Wyman Ltd has already 120 items, anyone mind if the other entries are merged to that?

I'm assuming everyone agrees then. ;-)

Sounds good to me.

Thanks. :)

agreed

When you get old, and don't remember anything anymore: https://www.biblio.gs/forum/112616-Cox-Wyman

... Sorry! :D

As usual, I started looking at the history of the company to write a profile... Of course things are never as simple as they seem.

So obviously they had several locations, and there are at least the following credits:

Cox & Wyman Ltd, London, Reading and Fakenham
Cox & Wyman Ltd, Fakenham and Reading
Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading

The Reading location was closed last year, Fakenham closed in 1982, but I'm not sure what exactly they had in London.

Anyways, to me it seems that the location credits are for the company offices, not for the exact printing location, and I would still merge all of the entries under one name (including Cox & Wyman as well), as they've never had any other companies and it's impossible to tell which exact location was used for the printing until they had only one office left.

But I'd like to get more thoughts about this, as I know that some printing companies have separate entries for separate locations. Should we separate the entries based on the location(s) mentioned, or is one entry sufficient?

Could possibly be that they just had an office in London - no printing press?

I too agree that Cox & Wyan (or Cox & Wyman Ltd) should be the company credit name - with any office location stated being a CNV.

Could possibly be that they just had an office in London - no printing press?

Yeah, looks like it. I found an old newsletter of theirs, which says:
"Certainly the 150 guests from publishers and 50 members of our staff representing the London office and both factories appeared to enjoy themselves and commented favourably on the new venue."
http://fakenhamcommunityarchive.weebly.com/uploads/8/1/7/0/8170890/jw490._trunk-call__21__compressed.pdf

I too agree that Cox & Wyan (or Cox & Wyman Ltd) should be the company credit name

I do still prefer Cox & Wyman Ltd as the main name (purely for selfish reasons - less subs to edit). :)

I tracked down some of the name changes the company has gone through:
(Just a quick research, it might not be 100% accurate)

Edward Cox [1770s]
Cox and Baylis [early 1800s]
Cox, Son and Baylis [early 1800s]
Messrs. Cox & Sons [early/mid-1800s]
Cox (Bros.) and Wyman [mid-1800s]
Cox & Wyman [~1858 (only for a couple of months)]
Wyman & Sons / Wyman & Sons Limited [~1858/9 onwards]
Cox & Wyman Limited [~1959 onwards]
CPI Cox & Wyman Limited [2010-2015]

Argh. This is gonna be fun... Luckily only the last three are in the database atm. :)

at least the history is fairly clear. when i contacted Clays to find out dates they weren't able to give me any good information.

looks like its gonna need merging again :D

I think it would be handy if we could reach a global agreement in principle to merge companies where the only differences are variations such as:
And/and/&
Brothers/Bros/Bros.
Company/Co/Co.
Limited/Ltd/Ltd.
rather than have a separate discussion every time. These are just different ways of writing down exactly the same words. For practical purposes, it is easiest to keep as the main entry the one with the most items; I don't see any strong argument for preferring one form over another.
I think we would need discussion about merging anything more e.g. variations with and without the "Limited" suffix. In Mirva's list beginning with Edward Cox, I would consider these all separate names. But we could include references to previous and later names in profiles.
IMO we would be making life unnecessarily complicated by including the location in the primary name or CNV. The location is a separate piece of information, not part of the name. I've probably said this before, but I can't see any instances arising where two books are identical in all respects except for the printer's location.

I think it would be handy if we could reach a global agreement in principle to merge companies where the only differences are variations such as: And/and/&, Brothers/Bros/Bros., Company/Co/Co., Limited/Ltd/Ltd.

Well, you have my support - mainly because I've already been doing that, and I know I'm not the only one. I've pretty much just brought unclear cases to the forums. ;-)

How about language variations? In Finland a company has the possibility to use a company name in multiple languages, they are called "parallel company names":
https://www.prh.fi/en/kaupparekisteri/yritystennimet/parallel_company_names.html

I would consider these as ANVs myself, but I wanna get more opinions before doing anything about them.

In Mirva's list beginning with Edward Cox, I would consider these all separate names.

Same here - obviously.

I've probably said this before, but I can't see any instances arising where two books are identical in all respects except for the printer's location.

I see it being possible. For example not all publishers indicate new printings in any way, so if the printer changes the printing to another location, it could be possible. I've never seen it though.

I created two separate entries for a Finnish printing company based on the printing house location (the company still exists but under a different name, and they still have the two printing house locations):
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/25704-WSOY-n-graafiset-laitokset-Juva
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/71446-WSOY-n-graafiset-laitokset-Porvoo

But I can merge those if others feel that this is too much. :)

I would agree that parallel names be treated as ANVs as long as we are sure it is just a translation and not a sister company trading in a different country

"I see it being possible. For example not all publishers indicate new printings in any way, so if the printer changes the printing to another location, it could be possible. I've never seen it though." It's a fairly slim possibility. Let's cross that bridge if and when we ever come to it.

"I created two separate entries for a Finnish printing company based on the printing house location" Since the entries already exist, no harm in leaving them as they are.

i agree too :)

I would agree that parallel names be treated as ANVs as long as we are sure it is just a translation and not a sister company trading in a different country

Of course. They are usually listed in the entry for the company in the company registry, at least in Finland, so the newer ones can be confirmed from there.

Since the entries already exist, no harm in leaving them as they are.

Yeah, it's no big deal either way. It's only 3 books total at the moment, so merging them doesn't take that long, and would be probably easier considering that the renamed companies are also in the database:

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/67389-WS-Bookwell-Oy (both locations under one entry)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/57950-Bookwell-Oy-Juva (just one of the locations)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/21040-Bookwell (alt entry that needs to be merged)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/86515-Bookwell-AB (parallel company name to Bookwell Oy)

Sorry to re-open this thread, but is there a categorical difference between the two Cox & Wyman profiles, one being with 'Ltd' in the title and the other being without?

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/24983-Cox-Wyman

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22107-Cox-Wyman-Ltd

I understand on Discogs the need to differentiate labels from music companies, but when it comes to business such as printers is there a distinction to be made? Is Cox & Wyman a shorthand, vernacular or less formal way of naming the company Cox & Wyman Ltd? And if so, shouldn't we merge the profiles (I would imagine with the "Ltd" one being the proper name).

i don't think there is any categorical difference but i think that others might disagree. personally i'd happily merge those two!

Thanks Elahrairah, look forward to seeing what others think.

Is Cox & Wyman a shorthand, vernacular or less formal way of naming the company Cox & Wyman Ltd?

In this case it's just a shorthand I believe. I'd say just merge those as they are clearly referring to the same version of the company as all of the books were printed between 1959 and 2010.

Great, that sounds reasonable.

I just discovered this thread and had a look at the current crop of Cox & Wyman variations. At present there is:

• Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading, Berkshire https://www.bookogs.com/credit/169930-Cox-Wyman-Ltd-Reading-Berkshire
• Cox & Wyman, London, Reading and Fakenham https://www.bookogs.com/credit/205277-Cox-Wyman-London-Reading-and-Fakenham
• Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading https://www.bookogs.com/credit/206116-Cox-Wyman-Ltd-Reading
• Cox & Wyman, Ltd. Cox & Wyman Ltd https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22107-Cox-Wyman-Ltd
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/228050-Cox-Wyman-Ltd
• Cox & Wyman, Fakenham and Reading https://www.bookogs.com/credit/24942-Cox-Wyman-Fakenham-and-Reading
• Cox & Wyman https://www.bookogs.com/credit/24983-Cox-Wyman

Personally, I would consolidate everything to Cox & Wyman Ltd using ANVs (CNVs). If there is a consensus on this matter, I am happy to lend a hand.

Hi Bookog, yes I agree Cox & Wyman Ltd should be the main profile. I am also happy to help out with the changes!

Thanks p.adkins for your comments and offer of help.

The sticking point around this issue seems to be formulating and implementing a policy on how to list name variations on Bookogs. This is similar to the discussion regarding Clays Ltd: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/41574-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-CNV-Preference

looks like these need doing again!

Yeah - and I think those ones with locations should be merged as well, especially because they just seem to be office locations and not printing locations.

me too, but iirc there was a good argument made to keep the locations in, but i can't remember who made them.

but iirc there was a good argument made to keep the locations in

In that case all the books should be updated accordingly, using those locations, no?

what i meant was that the argument was made to distinguish between Cox & Wyman Reading and Cox & Wyman Faversham when the book did so, otherwise to have it as Cox & Wyman Ltd where the book didn't. So "Cox & Wyman Reading & Faversham" is a CNV of Cox & Wyman Ltd, but "Cox & Wyman Reading" is a separate entity.

Personally I think that this is wrong, and I would have "Cox & Wyman Reading" and "Cox & Wyman Faversham" both as CNVs of Cox & Wyman Ltd and I am hoping that anyone who thinks differently will make their case here in this thread so we can consider it.

I also think that "Cox & Wyman" and "Cox & Wyman Ltd" should be merged, but again other Oggers have made a case for keeping them separate.

In the interim it looks as if someone has taken it upon themselves to conduct a mass edit.

Currently the database has just:

Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading https://www.bookogs.com/credit/206116-Cox-Wyman-Ltd-Reading
Cox & Wyman Ltd https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22107-Cox-Wyman-Ltd
Cox & Wyman https://www.bookogs.com/credit/24983-Cox-Wyman

As this matter is still under discussion, I think conducting these edits was a bit hasty.

what i meant

And I meant that there are a lot of books under Cox & Wyman Ltd which actually do specify a location, but it has just been ignored. I was asking whether we should update all books to include the location (when mentioned of course), nothing else. :)

As this matter is still under discussion, I think conducting these edits was a bit hasty.

Agreed - especially since there seems to be some arguments against it.

sorry, i misunderstood you mirva!

i think that in the end there will just be one Cox & Wyman credit. This is because, as far as I can work out, there is only one Cox & Wyman entity - they don't have offices in other countries or different businesses running under the same brand-name like many publishing firms. They seem to have had their main factory in different places in the uk during their life, and some people might want to distinguish between these factories. however it's not like e.g. Penguin where there were several entities existing at once and often the same book was published in different geographies by different companies.

Also, I apologise if I acted hastily in removing some of the credits, I'll be sure to wait for a general agreement in future.

They seem to have had their main factory in different places in the uk during their life, and some people might want to distinguish between these factories.

But are these locations actually the factories, or just the office locations? Because some books have like three different locations.

I don't think location matters greatly, it is the fact that it is the same company that is the important thing as far as I can see (unlike, for instance, Faber & Faber Ltd vs. Faber & Faber Inc., the latter being a sister American company but wholly separate to the former).

I mean if we think the location should entail a separate profile are we going to separate out the Penguin Books published in Harmondsworth and those published in central London, when the company moved its headquarters and operations in the 1990s?

In sum, I think if it is the same company then there should only be one credit.

+1 for same company = one credit.

P.S. elahrairah if you hadn't owned up to moving the credits probably no one would have known the identity of the culprit. I admire your honesty.

i think retaining the NV with location (when indicated) is sufficient; that way no data is lost.

But I say that without a working knowledge of the history of the company.

But I say that without a working knowledge of the history of the company.

again, jesus christ!

Currently the database has just:
Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading https://www.bookogs.com/credit/206116-Cox-Wyman-Ltd-Reading
Cox & Wyman Ltd https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22107-Cox-Wyman-Ltd
Cox & Wyman https://www.bookogs.com/credit/24983-Cox-Wyman

This is still up to date, but the profile of the Ltd. credit matches the Ltd., Reading credit.
Should books that credit Reading but are listed on the Ltd. credit be moved to Ltd., Reading?

well, I think these CNV discussions are worthless, unless a system is developed, that guide the users to the correct entries. We will have thousands and thousands of varieties and many users will not even try to find out what's correct and what's wrong. They will add what they see. And even if your are eager to find the correct company, you'll fail, if the original company is e.g. Arabian or Russian.

So before we talk about CNVs we should talk about a system that helps to find the right one. Maybe something like that used in wikipedia.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.