a lot of book have subtitles, may an extra field would be a good idea...

+1

+1 here too.

Until we get a separate subtitle field, how is everyone handling subtitles? The generic guidelines in the wiki say this:

Subtitles should be entered into the title field. If the release doesn't have its own separators, please use parentheses brackets - Title (Subtitle). If there is doubt as to whether text on the release is a subtitle or not, try referring to other objects, the official website, etc. (3.1.4.)

Doing it that way can create some super-long titles, so I'm only doing it sometimes. If it doesn't make for too unwieldy of a title, I put it in parenthesis. But if the subtitle is very long I put it in the notes field instead.

We discussed this about a month ago and agree, it is needed. seburns says that staff is discussing it.

http://www.biblio.gs/forum/897-Subtitle-field-needed

http://www.biblio.gs/book/10221-Revolution-In-The-Head-The-Beatles-Records-And-The-Sixties

http://www.biblio.gs/book/11509-Magical-Mystery-Tours-My-Life-With-The-Beatles

Any thought's on which of these is correct or indeed if either are?

Should I be separating the 'smaller print' in this way?

Got a huge amount of Beatles books and the vast majority which don't have the word 'Beatles' in the main bit have it somewhere on the cover and or spine.

Obviously a marketing decision.

I think all is okay at the moment: I prefer to use just a "-" for separating the subtitle, but ":" or brackets may serve as separators as well

I think all is okay at the moment

I would think so too. Personally I've just entered them as they've been printed, and so far all subtitles that I've encountered have been separated by a colon, ":"

+1

German use subtitles a lot, and it's really separate from the book title. For instance the novel Atomstadt (albeit translated from Russian). The title reads

Atomstadt [on the dust jacket and hardcover]

Aufzeichnungen des Professors Korostyljow [title page. It means “Notes from Professor Korostyljow]

A - or : wouldn't make any sense in this case.

IMO A subtitle field is a must have. Usually a non-fiction book will have a subtitle which explains what the book is about. That would eliminate the about/subject field which saves time
Also the genre field needs to be simplified. It takes too much time to search.
Right now it will take a long time to just get to a million books in the data base (let alone 50 million.

What's wrong with entering to the title field, as described above?
https://www.bookogs.com/book/10221-revolution-in-the-head-the-beatles-records-and-the-sixties

I understand that it sometimes makes the titles longer, but this is standard practice in many libraries, just the separator can vary.

That would eliminate the about/subject field
It actually has a purpose by gathering books about the same subject under entry, making them easy to browse. See for example:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/198410-jazz

Also the genre field needs to be simplified. It takes too much time to search.
Agreed. I started a discussion about it, but there's a bit of a disagreement which approach to take. But at least there's a discussion. :)
https://www.bookogs.com/forum/204562-suggestion-to-change-the-genre-list

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.