Award - Two of the same?

https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/UC+Berkeley+Summer+Reading+List
https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/Berkeley+Summer+Reading

I realize that Tim and Co are working on a better award interface, but I was hoping to help clean up some of the data before then.
And I ran across these two, but definitely have a question.

Are these the same award? Which came first? Which should we use?

Those aren't "awards" at all.

They are suggested readings for incoming freshmen at UC-Berkeley

I'm aware that they aren't "awards" in the most technical sense of the word.
But we've allowed this type of thing for over a decade. Can't stop it now.

>3 gilroy: "I'm aware that they aren't "awards" in the most technical sense of the word."

ROFLMAO! Oh my word, they aren't "awards" or "honors" in any sense of the words. At most they should have been Lists. Currently nothing I have cataloged has that nonsense populated but should it ever, have no doubt I would nuke it in a heartbeat. Good gawd, talk about a perfect example of GIGO.

>4 Taliesien: Awards had existed on the site for a LOT longer than lists and for most of the existence of the site, Awards and Honors had been used for all kinds of lists -- with no other options available, as >3 gilroy: mentioned, that had been a common practice. Like it or not, that is how the data looks like.

PS: If you are deleting awards that should be lists (and other misplaced data), I hope you are creating the lists at the same time and not just destroying the data.

>1 gilroy: Yep, same list.

"Berkeley Summer Reading" seems to be mostly coming from a non-English CK so if we decide to consolidate, I'd vote to do it under the longer name; probably also moving parts of the description into the remainder.

>5 AnnieMod: "Awards had existed on the site for a LOT longer than lists and for most of the existence of the site,"

Lists has been a feature for almost 12 years now...more than twice as long as Awards existed by itself. All of the fake awards/honors entered in works since then have two causes, the laziness inherent in inertia or ignorance, neither of which is excusable in my opinion since the impact isn't restricted to one's personal catalog, but exists at the work level.

p.s. if you find my laughter at the most hilarious thing I've read in weeks (literally wiped tears from my face I was laughing so hard there!) to be in bad taste, please do avail yourself of the Block feature so your delicate sensibilities aren't exposed to my "bad taste"

>7 Taliesien: Oh, I'm sorry. Please do not pass go and do not collect money.

Awards and Honors has been around as long as CK has been around. (Almost 18 years.)
Lists has been around for about 12.

>6 AnnieMod: That's what I figured, but wanted others consensus before I did it.

>8 gilroy: O..M..G..this is priceless! If I understand your insult above correctly "gilroy wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. Please do not pass go and do not collect money." (I had to look it up since I haven't played Monopoly in over 40 years and I don't make a habit of using urban slang to insult people online to get around TOS violations for personal attacks) you are saying my statement of fact that "Lists has been a feature for almost 12 years now...more than twice as long as Awards existed by itself." is a fail and I need to go to jail for being terribly wrong? And then you immediately say the exact same thing I did except framed a different way? LOLOLOL! I'm getting hiccups now I'm laughing so hard, time to use the Block feature myself I think but oh dear, thanks so much for the laughter this afternoon, I thoroughly enjoyed it. So have the others in my office. :D

>10 Taliesien: Wow. You can't math.

You said Lists has been a feature for almost 12 years now...more than twice as long as Awards existed by itself
This means you said Lists existed 12 years, Awards existed less than 6 years.

I said you're wrong because Awards has been around SINCE THE SITE WAS CREATED -- 18 years, while Lists has been around less than 12.

No, I didn't repeat what you said. I pointed out your glaring error.

>11 gilroy: No, I didn't repeat what you said. I pointed out your glaring error.

You're right. You didn't repeat what Taliesien said. Your statement and his are not related.

While I might disagree with the significance Taliesien's points, Taliesien's analysis is correct and you misread what was said.

Awards existed for six years before lists were created. Awards and lists were in existence together for twelve years. Twelve years (the period lists and awards existed together) is twice six years (the period awards existed without lists).

The comparison is between the time lists existed and the time awards existed and lists did not.

In my book, "Honors" encompasses anything a publisher would list among the distinctions one of their books has received. The Berkeley list makes those sorts of lists. Often.

There's a third award (probably just a typo) that seems to be the same as the first two: https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/UC+Berkeley+Summer+Readin+List

>14 lesmel: Yeah, that was a mistake of my edits the other day... before awards got locked and I can't fix it. :(

>13 davidgn: Personally, I would be more inclined to see that as a homework assignment. But I wouldn't go out of my way to delete such info either.

Okay, see https://www.librarything.com/topic/353583