Not all titles showing up on newspapers page

[jduss4]

While investigating https://github.com/CDRH/CDRH-General/issues/110, discovered that some titles are not displaying in the /newspapers list. In a few cases, this may be because they are flagged as having "no issues."

An example of a title that isn't showing up is The Hesperian. Another is The Nebraskan.

Kicking this over to @lweakly to look into the lccn and titles, then can be kicked back over to a dev to see if we can figure out

• why these titles are not showing up
• if these titles should be showing up
• if lccns need to be altered
• what the problem with index.similar_pages is for titles like the Hesperian Student

[jduss4]

Here is a database dump of the titles table, for @lweakly 's reference

all_titles.xlsx

[jduss4]

The following are not being displayed:

The Hesperian sn96080314 The Nebraskan sn96080313

[jduss4]

INSERT INTO `chronam`.`core_place_titles` (`id`, `place_id`, `title_id`) VALUES ('57', 'Nebraska--Lancaster--Lincoln', 'sn96080314');
INSERT INTO `chronam`.`core_place_titles` (`id`, `place_id`, `title_id`) VALUES ('58', 'Nebraska--Lancaster--Lincoln', 'sn96080313');

The newspapers view method is organizing all of the titles by state, and when I checked the core_place_titles join table, I found that the two papers above didn't have an association. I manually added them, as above, and now they are showing up!

I suspect that there is something different about their marc data which meant that they were not imported with the correct locational information.

[lweakly]

Jess, I looked at the MARC records for The Hesperian sn96080314 The Nebraskan sn96080313

neither one of them have a 752 field

I'm going to ask Margaret if she can fix this.

[jduss4]

Thanks! :)

[lweakly]

Reopening issue to have Margaret fix the MARC records.

[lweakly]

Margaret has added the 752 field to the MARC records. I will check with LOC to see what else needs to be done.

[jduss4]

@lweakly any update on this?

note, slightly related to hemingford herald issue: #51

[jduss4]

@jnlsmns believes that these records have been updated. It should just be a matter of reingesting our existinb batches (no changes needed on our end...??)