Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Questions (not edit requests)
>
merging multiple editions-Answered
date
newest »




That is exactly what I meant. I recently went to shelve a vintage book with several duplicates that had been imported from the third party seller. mine was the only shelving at all so the rest were duplicates. It was a pain to combine the default with a duplicate and then delete one at a time. that was what I was asking. Can I seperate a target and several duplicates in a group and then delete all the duplicates in a batch instead of just combining the target with 1 dupicate over and over.

If the duplicate editions have no adds, then you can just delete them and not worry about which edition is receiving the non-activity.


If all of the duplicates should go to the same edition, then, yes, you can separate all of them to be in the same Work. You will still have to delete them one at a time. Sometimes deletes don't go through. It would still be best to delete one and wait for it to through before doing others with the same target edition. You can know when the delete went through by looking at the librarian log for the target work.
When the delete has gone through, you will see something like this:
edition: Deleted edition id=166362774 title=The moon and sixpence (Chinese version) primary author=Maugham asin=B0791B28RM, deleted 0 reviews, deleted work=176399388
You cannot delete any edition that has more than 5 shelvings. That must be done by a Super. They appreciate your separating the duplicate and its target and also giving them a link to the work with which the target should be recombined.
https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/...
It in't practical to seperate two editions, delete, combine and then repeat for each edition to be deleted. II was wondering if I could do a mass delete, seperating the good edition and all the duplicates and combining it into one work and then delete all the duplicates. I searhed for the answer here:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/comme...
The answers seemed to imply that I could do just that. But since the posts are all several years old, I wsn't sure if the system would still work that way.