I just got to thinking that if we ever have Master Releases here, some of them would be quite enormous. The biggest ones on Discogs might be around 250-300 releases but that's nothing compared to the many printings of the King James Bible, Shakespeare's works, Dickens, etc.

we already they need them...

when i saw the site i thought oh snap! i know what im submitting first!! much to my surprise & delight, a good omen, that book was already here
http://www.biblio.gs/book/432-The-Kybalion-A-Study-of-the-Hermetic-Philosophy-of-Ancient-Egypt-Greece

but i have a different edition/printing... so i figured let that still be my first sub, and poke at the system and see how it sorts out
http://www.biblio.gs/book/858-The-Kybalion-Hermetic-Philosophy

what should the hierarchy be? is master release appropriate? should it be "Title" with editions & printings subordinate? so much to figure out!!!!!

oh and btw off topic we totally need aliases, Three Initiates is also Yogi Ramacharaka is also Magus Incognito... they are all William Walker Atkinson...

oh and search doesnt work for anything but titles... totally off topic but these are things i learned in my first sub lol

master release!! what say you development team?

Yes, much to figure out!

  1. Master Title sounds way better than Master Release for books. With things like the Bible, we need to be oh so careful as there are different versions and they would each go in their own Master Title. King James Bible, New King James Version, New International Version, New English Bible, and the list goes on!
  2. Yes, we need Aliases and Variations. No argument there.
  3. Search does not work at filmogs for names either, only titles. I'm guessing the same (or very similar) software versions.

yeh sorry to go off topic with those other things they prolly deserve their own threads lol

from what i can tell, whatever software being used seems to be the dynamic style that discogs didnt have and caused such problems i guess for development.. im guessing whatever they chose to run these things on is really flexible and should be easy(ish) to change... now we just gotta populate the db with so many books that bibliogs gets focused on!! :D lol we gonna have as many entires as all the baby ogs combined sooner than later

I can't even begin to imagine the numbers but It's probably 50 books published for every 1 musical release. And with books spanning a millennium before physical music, we have a long, fun trip ahead of us.

lol we gonna have as many entires as all the baby ogs combined sooner than later

Yes! I can't wait for the weekend - I have quite a few books waiting. :)

I just got to thinking that if we ever have Master Releases here, some of them would be quite enormous. The biggest ones on Discogs might be around 250-300 releases but that's nothing compared to the many printings of the King James Bible, Shakespeare's works, Dickens, etc.

How detailed are we going to be? Are we going to catalog every single printing of every edition - or just editions?

"Are we going to catalog every single printing of every edition"

--I don't think so. I think that printings like 4th, 7th, 23rd, etc. will just be manufacturing variations, right? Do they really change?

HOWEVER, take a look at these two books

They are the same editions, and appear to be printed one year apart from each other, but different cover art. So, I guess yes, we do need to catalog at least some different printings.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1113-The-Two-Towers
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1106-The-Two-Towers

Yeah, I started out not noting the printing, but after I noticed yesterday that my second printing of Alcools has content changes from the first printing, I started to question it.

Differences between printings are not unusual, they can be sometimes small, hardly noticeable, and sometimes easily spotted out. Of course, especially with older books, it's not always possible to separate different printings.

The only thing about cataloging every single printing is that it adds another massive layer to the already monumental task. It would be awesome, but maybe we could somehow catalog them on one page instead of creating a new page for each one?

On the other hand, I'm sure hardcore book collectors would love to be able to add the first printing to their collection instead of some generic entry.

I don't know... Just some random thoughts. :D

tbh this site fully realized is a monumental task of epic proportions regardless.. its gonna have to be able to handle prinitngs..

I'm really shocked at how slapped-together and wheel-reinvent-y this site is. How could Discogs start a database for cataloging books and not even realize that books have relationships just like records, and that we would immediately need the ability to group related books together?

It's like this site is predicated on the absurd idea that books are this mysterious world no one has ever bothered to catalog before. Why not stand on the shoulders of giants and learn about existing cataloging methods and formal bibliographic metadata standards that so many library and archive-focused sites are already using? Why guess and try to cobble together an understanding of how the publishing world works based strictly on the physical media your userbase has submitted so far? Why not utilize existing standards and terminology so you can cross-reference this data with so many other resources online?

I understand that formal bibliographic metadata standards are complicated and esoteric, so I can appreciate having a site where collectors can crowdsource a simplified view of the world of books. It's a good idea, really.

But did anyone even notice that archive.org's [url=http://openlibrary.org/]Open Library[/url] is almost exactly the same thing we are doing here? You can even set up your own copy or fork their github project, using all their data.

If the developers are aware of that site, or GoodReads, or any other book-cataloging effort, really, and how users enter data on them, then why choose to omit something so crucial as an Edition field? It's like they've never looked at books before.

sigh ... can't even post linked text here? Must every wheel be reinvented?

yeh cant honestly disagree with you...

but i am lookin at it positive.. for now.. we shall see how responsive the development team is..

gonna have to input this data anyways so im having fun with it :D

edit oh no editing yet either lol...

Positivity will win the day mjb. Let's take your criticisms and direct them toward building this site together.

Are there problems with the site? Absolutely!
Are there problems at Discogs? Yes, and there always will be.

But, you, and I, and all the others here can help affect change.

goodreads, librarything, open library, I'm glad they all exist. But I don't use them.

I've never open library for more than a short while. Why? Every time I would try to find my particular book, the exact one I owned, it didn't exist. They always had some different copy show up when I put in my ISBN or other identifier. Updating that is a pain and there seems to be no active community who are there to protect the data. Also, those sites were not built from the ground up. They simply used software to go and grab data from sites like Amazon or Alibris or abebooks or whatever, and tons of incorrect data was imported in.

The difference here is that we ARE building from ground up. We are putting data first and foremost, just like at Discogs, and yes, master releases, aliases (pen names), editions, special bindings, will all be addressed in time.

Now back to the OP:

Here are the books in the database that have more than one edition documented:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1957-Fables
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1532-Fables

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1119-The-Two-Towers
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1106-The-Two-Towers
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1113-The-Two-Towers

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1490-The-Fellowship-Of-The-Ring
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1133-The-Fellowship-Of-The-Ring

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1942-Enders-Game
http://www.biblio.gs/book/292-Enders-Game

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1783-Hans-Brinker-Or-The-Silver-Skates
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1166-Hans-Brinker-Or-The-Silver-Skates

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1048-Around-The-World-In-Eighty-Days
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1056-Around-The-World-In-Eighty-Days

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1305-Do-Androids-Dream-Of-Electric-Sheep
http://www.biblio.gs/book/545-Do-Androids-Dream-of-Electric-Sheep

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1152-Holy-Bible-The-New-Testament
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1422-Holy-Bible-The-New-Testament

Now, for The Westing Game, I probably should not submit the second copy that we own.

Here is the one in the database now:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1250-The-Westing-Game

And the second one we own is identical in every way except for the printing numbers on this page:
http://i.imgur.com/Al0IXd7.jpg

So, going forward, it's probably best to submit different printings only if the cover art or content has changed.

I think it needs to be discussed more.

Mainly for the reason that for example sometimes alongside the printing information they also mention the printing year, which can be different on different printings - even though they would be otherwise identical. IMO those should be entered separately.

But then, maybe we need to draw a line somewhere - but where? Why should we lump different printings in one entry if we can tell them apart?

More of them, just so I can keep track:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/2473-The-Cabin-Faced-West
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2479-The-Cabin-Faced-West

http://www.biblio.gs/book/2449-Julie-Of-The-Wolves
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2443-Julie-Of-The-Wolves

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1560-Emma
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2086-Emma

Added one (well, two) to try out...

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3247-45
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3243-45

i'll just chime in and add my support for this feature before the data gets too messy, I have at least half a dozen different copies of 1984 to add.

There are now 4 varients of The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers.
2 varients of The Return Of The King and The Hobbit.

http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/J.R.R.%20Tolkien

Two different versions of Tara Vanflower's Violent Violet.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3999-Violent-Violet
http://www.biblio.gs/book/4000-Violent-Violet

Two different versions of The Threat:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3952-The-Threat
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3956-The-Threat

Cześć Andrzej :)

Cześć Marek. Wow, over 100+ submissions already?! I have a heck of a lot of catching up to do!

In addition to duplicate titles which need the master release, I've also identified duplicate author names and company names. Both an ANV and CNV function is needed as others have pointed out!

Two more for the list:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4502-Sammy-The-Seal
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2661-Sammy-The-Seal

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4237-Morderstwo-To-Nic-Trudnego 2002
http://www.biblio.gs/book/4730-Morderstwo-To-Nic-Trudnego 1998

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4215-Smiertelna-Klatwa
http://www.biblio.gs/book/4477-Smiertelna-Klatwa

Thank to everyone for keeping these here. I know this will be useful once we have that feature implemented.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/788-Crime-and-Punishment-A-Novel-in-Six-Parts-with-Epilogue
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2502-Crime-And-Punishment

http://www.biblio.gs/book/2530-My-World
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3783-My-World

just to bring to attention the dire need for master releases before this database grows too big and gets too many duplicates:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/765-1984

http://www.biblio.gs/book/5145-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5146-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5147-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5148-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5149-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5150-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5151-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5152-1984
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5153-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5154-Nineteen-Eighty-Four

Yes & about key release.
Key edition should be always the oldest published edition.
Key edition should be always edition in original language
list of editions in one master release should be sorted by date, from the oldest to the newest.
How do You think?

http://www.biblio.gs/book/5221-Bastion
http://www.biblio.gs/book/305-The-Stand

Key edition should be always the oldest published edition.
list of editions in one master release should be sorted by date, from the oldest to the newest.

Makes sense to me.

Key edition should be always edition in original language

This makes sense but I don't know how it will work practically, if we can get the english language title to show in search results it might be okay still.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/435-The-DaVinci-Code
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5289-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci

http://www.biblio.gs/book/545-Do-Androids-Dream-of-Electric-Sheep
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1305-Do-Androids-Dream-Of-Electric-Sheep
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3798-Do-Androids-Dream-Of-Electric-Sheep
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5262-Do-Androids-Dream-Of-Electric-Sheep
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5348-Do-Androids-Dream-of-Electric-Sheep-Filmed-As-Blade-Runner

easier to list authors now I think

http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/Kurt%20Vonnegut
http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/Philip%20K.%20Dick
http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/George%20Orwell
http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/Max%20Brooks

http://www.biblio.gs/book/5723-Desperacja
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5726-Desperacja

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3271-22-11-63
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5756-Dallas-63

http://www.biblio.gs/book/407-Dreamcatcher
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5790-Lowca-Snow

http://www.biblio.gs/book/5878-Cmetarz-Zwiezat
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5750-Smetarz-Dla-Zwierzakow

http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/Yuval%20Noah%20Harari

http://www.biblio.gs/book/5298-Bezmiar-Slawy
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6222-Bezmiar-Slawy

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4785-Azazel
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6268-Azazel

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6299-Just-After-Sunset
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5876-Po-Zachodzie-Slonca

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6368-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci - XI edition
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5289-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci - I edition -
The difference is only number of edition , printing factory & few deatils - is it valid as separate entry?

I agree that there should be a category for master title.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6699-Morrissey-Marr-The-Severed-Alliance-The-Definitive-Story-Of-The-Smiths
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3796-Morrissey-Marr-La-Alianza-Rota-La-Historia-Definitiva-De-The-Smiths

Add this one to the post above:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6721-Morrissey-Marr-The-Severed-Alliance-The-Definitive-Story-Of-The-Smiths

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6953-Old-Possums-Book-Of-Practical-Cats (hardback)
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6933-Old-Possums-Book-Of-Practical-Cats (paperback)

About Master Releases:
I was talking about this with a friend of mine, who I collaborate with on Discogs. Well.. The point is: a book doesn't have a "master release", but an "original title"..
IMO, what has to guide people between editions is the "main/original title".
For example: a book composed and made in UK should have a sheet with "title", "author", "Index" and nothing else.
Then, inside this "master information", there will be the editions.. with titles that refer to the "main title" but with their ANV.

The ANV is needed absolutely.

What do you think?

  • we we have to know how to solve problem - if 1 book contain 2 previously published novels, kind of compilation. Somehow it should lead to both 'original title' I hope it's possible.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/772-Atlas-Shrugged
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7192-Atlas-Shrugged

To update the 1984 list from above:

http://www.biblio.gs/book/765-1984
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5145-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5146-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5147-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5148-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5149-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5150-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5151-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5152-1984
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5153-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5154-Nineteen-Eighty-Four
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7274-1984

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7266-1984

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7394-Hersenschimmen
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7355-Hersenschimmen

I was talking about this with a friend of mine, who I collaborate with on Discogs. Well.. The point is: a book doesn't have a "master release", but an "original title"..

I think books can have a master release too. We're going to need some method to group up the books, otherwise the author pages are going to end up really cluttered. Ideally, for example, the George Orwell page - http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/George%20Orwell - should display only one entry for "Nineteen Eighty-Four", and by clicking it you could see the different versions of it.

Sure we could have something similar than Filmogs has, have "Original Title" instead of "Film", but books are not quite the same as films, and we would be needing credits in both the title and book level.

Organizing the different editions and printings is probably the biggest challenge this database will have due to the amount of certain titles. Discogs MRs are going to look so puny, even the Beatles ones, and considering that they could also use some sorting within the MR, we might need that here even more. But that is something the peeps building the system have to figure out... I'm not jealous of that task.

Yeah, but.. A Master Release is something different from "Original title".. a Master Release is a Release, so a phisical edition in particular, while the "Original title" is to be intended as made of "Title", "List of ANV" (updated automatically while submitting new editions/printings), and "Author".. maybe also the "Main capter index".

Nothing else. No more credits. Credits are to be put into editions and printings.

The "Problem" of Discogs MRs (which is not a problem itself but only a difficulty) is that, referring to the same title, we could have albums, compilation-albums, DVDs. Here are only books! So..

I think I see what you are saying.

Generally, the "Master Release" is a collection of releases surrounding a particular piece of music. So, you click on "Let It Bleed" by the Rolling Stones and you'll see Genre, Style, Year and Tracklist. And also links to the 164 documented releases of "Let It Bleed."

We might be getting hung up on words, here. "Original Title" does seem to suggest the "true first print". Generally, a book (published in English) is released first either in England or the U.S., right? Other editions will follow it, but there is only on true first print. Is that the role that "Original Title" should play? Designating the true first print?

If that is the case, then "Master Title" would serve the same purpose as "Master Release."

http://www.biblio.gs/book/1039-Hamlet
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6885-Gamlet

Two more to add

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7134-Punk-Rock-An-Oral-History
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6634-Punk-Rock-An-Oral-History

http://www.biblio.gs/book/435-The-DaVinci-Code (spelt incorrectly, how do I let OS know they need to leave space between Da and Vinci?)
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5289-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6368-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/8073-The-Da-Vinci-Code
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7815-Da-Vinci-Code

http://www.biblio.gs/book/178-Good-Omens-The-Nice-and-Accurate-Prophecies-of-Agnes-Nutter-Witch
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7796-Good-Omens-The-Nice-And-Accurate-Prophecies-Of-Agnes-Nutter-Witch

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3776-The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-The-Galaxy
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7793-The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-The-Galaxy

http://www.biblio.gs/book/8101-Geralds-Game
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5742-Gra-Geralda

http://www.biblio.gs/book/8103-Desperation
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5723-Desperacja
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5726-Desperacja

http://www.biblio.gs/book/8081-Four-Past-Midnight
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5112-Czwarta-Po-Polnocy-Tom-I-II

Uhm.. More or less: I mean that the "Original Title" should be a binder, not an edition. That's why, IMO, it should contain ONLY "Title", "List of ANV" (updated automatically while submitting new editions/printings), and "Author".. maybe also the "Main capter index".

Under those details, there should be the list of editions, in time-line order, and, inside each edition, the list of printings, in time-line order too.

That's my idea!

*chapters'

http://www.biblio.gs/book/8075-Angels-Demons
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6370-Anioly-I-Demony

Then, inside each "Original Title" (Binder), there should be "Add an edition" (so, fields like "Author" and "Title" should be inserted only like ANVs), and inside each edition "Add a printing" (with only "Year" field to be inserted.. or few more details)

We might be getting hung up on words, here. "Original Title" does seem to suggest the "true first print".

Yeah, it does, and maybe that's what confused me, and still does... lol. I think I need to see a visual presentation of the "Original Title" idea to be able to fully understand how it works and how it differs from the "Master Release/Title" idea... but then, I don't necessarily need to understand it if management does, I'm not the one building it. :D

I try here:

PAGE "Original Title":

Author: Name And Surname Written As-It-Has-To-Be-Written
Anthor ANVs: (updated automatically from editions/printing)
Title: Title Of The Book/Masterpiece
Title ANVs: (updated automatically from editions/printing)
[Main Chapters' Index]

Editions: automaically updated like in Discogs [displayed as one row for each edition, one subrow for each printing]
1977 - Title - Country - Publisher - Editor - Translator
| 1980
|
1988
| etc..
2000 - Title - Country - Publisher - Editor - Translator
|
2002
...

---> Add An Edition

PAGE "Edition":
Cover
Author: [blocked field]
Author ANV:
Title: [blocked field]
Title ANV:
Credits: [other roles]
Copyrights: Year - Owner
Identifiers:
Format:
Publication Location:
Languages: Language - Description
Pages: Total - Description
Genres: max 2
Notes:

PAGE "Printing":
Cover(s)
Author: [blocked field]
Author ANV:
Title: [blocked field]
Title ANV:
Copyrights: Year - Owner

This is my idea.. Editable.. Improvable! But.. I think that the "Original Title" page should be like that.

I forgot: at the end of the PAGE "Edition"..
---> Add A Printing

+1 for palikao83.

Only remark is the genre. I don't think the genre switches with each edition, so the field should be at Original Title, not Edition?

Yes, it could be. My only doubt in putting it into "Original Title" is, for example, when a book id published both in "Literature" genre and "Educational".. So.. the genre can be a bit different.. That's why I have specified "max 2" in genre.. Maybe, the main genre can be put into "Original Title" and can be blocked into "Edition", while the second genre can be editable.

So, it could be modified as..

PAGE "Original Title":
Author: Name And Surname Written As-It-Has-To-Be-Written
Anthor ANVs: (updated automatically from editions/printing)
Title: Title Of The Book/Masterpiece
Title ANVs: (updated automatically from editions/printing)
Main Genre(s): 1 or max 2
[Main Chapters' Index]

Editions: automaically updated like in Discogs [displayed as one row for each edition, one subrow for each printing]
1977 - Title - Country - Publisher - Editor - Translator
| 1980
|
1988
| etc..
2000 - Title - Country - Publisher - Editor - Translator
|
2002
...

---> Add An Edition

PAGE "Edition":
Cover
Author: [blocked field]
Author ANV:
Title: [blocked field]
Title ANV:
Credits: [other roles]
Copyrights [of this edition]: Year - Owner
Identifiers:
Format:
Publication Location:
Languages: Language - Description
Pages: Total - Description
Genre [of this edition]: max 1
Notes:

---> Add A Printing

PAGE "Printing":
Cover(s)
Author: [blocked field]
Author ANV:
Title: [blocked field]
Title ANV:
Copyrights [or simply "Year"]: Year

This is my idea.. Editable -again-.. Improvable! But.. I think that the "Original Title" page should be like that.

Update from Ambassadors post (one new addition):

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6721-Morrissey-Marr-The-Severed-Alliance-The-Definitive-Story-Of-The-Smiths
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6699-Morrissey-Marr-The-Severed-Alliance-The-Definitive-Story-Of-The-Smiths
http://www.biblio.gs/book/3796-Morrissey-Marr-La-Alianza-Rota-La-Historia-Definitiva-De-The-Smiths

I think that if the DB has to be modified, users should stop submitting unless everyone do everything twice :)

http://www.biblio.gs/book/9076-Receptury-Klasztorne-Dla-Duszy-I-Ciala
http://www.biblio.gs/book/9095-Wielka-Kuchnia-Klasztorna

[u=Adambassador], [u=Mirva] and [u=Rivin] what do you think?

I don't think we need to cease submitting. Any problems that exist now can easily be corrected if we approach them as a team. Plus, we need lots of data to work with.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/9448-Barnyard-Dance
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5177-Barnyard-Dance

Palikao83, I think your updated system looks good. Editions could have a different foreword for example, so it's good to have that 'credits' field available there. I also agree with Adambassador, no need to stop submitting... assuming it is technically possible to merge editions at a later stage? I hope this is implemented soon, as I feel that will be the point Bibliogs really starts to add value relative to existing databases.

I agree with that ^^ I mean only submit-mantain-submit-mantain etc.. Frequently!

Just want to mention here that I've been assured by teo that any major updates to the db that might require a mass correction would be handled with a script, not by users. Also, the more submissions that these new sites have, the more momentum there is for development on them. Bibliogs has been on fire for the last couple of months and that has helped in advocating for more resources from the Dev team. Please keep submitting!

http://www.biblio.gs/book/609-Owl-At-Home
http://www.biblio.gs/book/10617-Owl-At-Home

Of course.. Keep all submitting! :D

http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/Astrid%20Lindgren 3 x Pippi

yes but only two of them belong to one master...the third has three books in one. You see how difficult this will be...

I see, thanks, anyway this 3rd book also has to be somehow connected to this 2.

"the third has three books in one"

A compilation!

http://www.biblio.gs/book/740-True-Grit
http://www.biblio.gs/book/11868-True-Grit

http://www.biblio.gs/book/10221-Revolution-In-The-Head-The-Beatles-Records-And-The-Sixties
http://www.biblio.gs/book/9577-Revolution-In-The-Head-The-Beatles-Records-And-The-Sixties
http://www.biblio.gs/book/10223-Revolution-In-The-Head-The-Beatles-Records-And-The-Sixties

http://www.biblio.gs/book/12615-Ludzie-Bezdomni
http://www.biblio.gs/book/8158-Ludzie-Bezdomni

http://www.biblio.gs/book/12275-Wymarzony-Dom-Ani
http://www.biblio.gs/book/12627-Wymarzony-Dom-Ani

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4967-Don-Quijote-de-la-Mancha
http://www.biblio.gs/book/4969-Don-Quijote-de-la-Mancha

http://www.biblio.gs/book/12769-Don-Kichote-Tom-I-II
Mine version I've added both volumes as one entry(1 isbn number, 1 price for both volumes)

http://www.biblio.gs/book/12803-Kubus-Fatalista-I-Jego-Pan
http://www.biblio.gs/book/8166-Kubus-Fatalista-I-Jego-Pan

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7094-Ogniem-I-Mieczem
http://www.biblio.gs/book/12836-Ogniem-I-Mieczem-Tom-I-II

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7098-Potop
http://www.biblio.gs/book/12839-Potop-Tom-I-III

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7100-Pan-Wolodyjowski
http://www.biblio.gs/book/12843-Pan-Wolodyjowski

http://www.biblio.gs/book/13024-Blue-Hat-Green-Hat
http://www.biblio.gs/book/2361-Blue-Hat-Green-Hat

Mentioned above:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/9448-Barnyard-Dance
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5177-Barnyard-Dance

Add:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/13050-Barnyard-Dance

Norwegian Wood
http://www.biblio.gs/book/13973-Tokio-Blues-Norwegian-Wood
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6228-Norwegian-Wood

Burning Britain: The History Of UK Punk 1980-1984

http://www.biblio.gs/book/7137-Burning-Britain-The-History-Of-UK-Punk-1980-1984
http://www.biblio.gs/book/14312-Burning-Britain-Historie-Punku-Ve-Velke-Britanii-1980-1984

reposting the Da Vinci code links as when you edit the title of a release, the link no longer works

was
http://www.biblio.gs/book/435-The-DaVinci-Code (spelt incorrectly, how do I let OS know they need to leave space between Da and Vinci?)
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5289-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6368-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/8073-The-Da-Vinci-Code
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7815-Da-Vinci-Code

Now
http://www.biblio.gs/book/435-The-Da-Vinci-Code
http://www.biblio.gs/book/5289-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/6368-Kod-Leonarda-Da-Vinci
http://www.biblio.gs/book/8073-The-Da-Vinci-Code
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7815-Da-Vinci-Code

http://www.biblio.gs/book/6499-Harry-Potter-And-The-Philosophers-Stone
http://www.biblio.gs/book/874-Harry-Potter-and-the-Sorcerers-Stone
http://www.biblio.gs/book/14421-Harry-Potter-and-the-Sorcerers-Stone

http://www.biblio.gs/book/14484-Catch-22
http://www.biblio.gs/book/588-Catch-22

http://www.biblio.gs/book/591-A-Confederacy-of-Dunces
http://www.biblio.gs/book/7033-A-Confederacy-of-Dunces

(Though I'm not sure what the difference is... I have a copy too, but without further details it's hard to say whether mine is exactly the same than either of the existing entries.)

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4822-The-Catcher-In-The-Rye
http://www.biblio.gs/book/14496-The-Catcher-in-the-Rye

http://www.biblio.gs/book/11509-Magical-Mystery-Tours-My-Life-With-The-Beatles
http://www.biblio.gs/book/17710-Magical-Mystery-Tours-My-Life-with-The-Beatles

http://www.biblio.gs/book/13097-The-God-Delusion
http://www.biblio.gs/book/17819-The-God-Delusion

http://www.biblio.gs/book/18912-Anger-Is-An-Energy-My-Life-Uncensored
http://www.biblio.gs/book/13708-Anger-Is-An-Energy

http://www.biblio.gs/book/10422-Star-Wars-A-New-Dawn
http://www.biblio.gs/book/41169-Star-Wars-A-New-Dawn

3rd edition: http://www.biblio.gs/book/47488-Banned-In-DC-Photos-And-Anecdotes-From-The-DC-Punk-Underground-79-85
4th edition: http://www.biblio.gs/book/47500-Banned-In-DC-Photos-And-Anecdotes-From-The-DC-Punk-Underground-79-85

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/21466-Laura-Ingalls-Wilder

All of her books will need master releases as soon as I can get around to submitting them.

"There are now 4 varients of The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers.
2 varients of The Return Of The King and The Hobbit.

http://www.biblio.gs/list-book-credit/J.R.R.%20Tolkien" -profoundemonium

There are now:

6 Towers
6 Hobbits
2 Returns
4 Fellowships
and I think even more in the foreign language titles that I don't feel like translating at the moment

probably belong in the same MR:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/230-The-Tibetan-Book-of-the-Dead-or-The-After-Death-Experiences-on-the-Bardo-Plane-according-to-Lama-Kazi-Dawa-Samdups-English-Rendering
http://www.biblio.gs/book/51448-The-Tibetan-Book-Of-The-Dead-First-Complete-Translation

"probably belong in the same MR:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/230-The-Tibetan-Book-of-the-Dead-or-The-After-Death-Experiences-on-the-Bardo-Plane-according-to-Lama-Kazi-Dawa-Samdups-English-Rendering
http://www.biblio.gs/book/51448-The-Tibetan-Book-Of-The-Dead-First-Complete-Translation"

If they are different translations, then I'm not so sure.

the different translation thing is going to be interesting, if the attempt is to directly translate then I think that they can be in same MR however if there is a lot of interpretation then that could become an issue, or maybe not?

The christian bible could be a good test case, how many changes justify a new MR?

"The christian bible could be a good test case, how many changes justify a new MR?"

I just did a search and found about 35 Christian Bibles in the database. It's gonna be monumental.

When it comes to Master Releases, I'm hoping it's as simple as they made it at Filmogs. There are "Film" pages and "Release" pages. When entering a Release, you just put in the Film that it's tied to.

http://www.biblio.gs/book/971-The-Federalist-Papers
http://www.biblio.gs/book/54338-The-Federalist-Papers

http://www.biblio.gs/book/53722-Middlesex
http://www.biblio.gs/book/55277-Middlesex

http://www.biblio.gs/book/56038-The-Flame-Throwers
http://www.biblio.gs/book/56047-The-Flame-Throwers

http://www.biblio.gs/book/728-Lord-Of-The-Flies
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57085-Lord-Of-The-Flies

The Catcher In The Rye (2 of them already mentioned above by mirva, but I included them into this new list too)

http://www.biblio.gs/book/4822-The-Catcher-In-The-Rye
http://www.biblio.gs/book/14496-The-Catcher-in-the-Rye
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57151-The-Catcher-In-The-Rye
http://www.biblio.gs/book/51098-Nad-Propastiu-Vo-Rzhi-Povesti-Rasskazy

http://www.biblio.gs/book/15172-Animal-Farm
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57175-Animal-Farm

http://www.biblio.gs/book/3850-The-Audacity-Of-Hope
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57301-The-Audacity-of-Hope

Macbeth
http://www.biblio.gs/book/52414-Macbeth
http://www.biblio.gs/book/17168-Macbeth
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57333-Macbeth
http://www.biblio.gs/book/42454-Macbeth

The House of the Seven Gables
http://www.biblio.gs/book/57360-The-House-of-the-Seven-Gables
http://www.biblio.gs/book/54348-The-House-Of-Seven-Gables

http://www.biblio.gs/book/42385-The-Little-Prince
http://www.biblio.gs/book/45793-The-Little-Prince
http://www.biblio.gs/book/45808-The-Little-Prince
http://www.biblio.gs/book/60091-The-Little-Prince

http://www.biblio.gs/book/62420-Saint-George-And-The-Dragon
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1871-Saint-George-And-The-Dragon

http://www.biblio.gs/book/62388-Tikki-Tikki-Tembo
http://www.biblio.gs/book/1962-Tikki-Tikki-Tembo

+1 for master releases. It's particularly annoying when you own multiple copies of the same title, but from different publishers etc. Or multiple copies in different languages.

This addition shouldn't be too hard, the ISBN system has been around for years now.

I'm sure this has already been discussed in recent weeks, but it's very possible that clueless me simply missed it.

What we are doing with Series could be a way of joining books together in a "Master Release" situation.
See http://www.biblio.gs/credit/20854-The-Lord-Of-The-Rings

Has this been considered as the possible solution?

If not, we could even consider a "Master Release" drop down option.

Hi, I just started submitting books and I'm already missing master releases. I'm not a fan of managing this by series, as popular series can vary in different countries by volume and numbering. For example: The Shadowrun novel series in Germany has additional items by Germany authors that are placed in various positions and doesn't match the American numbering now...

As for the master release: PUSH, we need this =)

As for the master release: PUSH, we need this =)

Agreed, and welcome to the site!

I'm bumping this, hoping for more opinions. ;-)

I don't see the point of this site unless it has Master releases for titles and then lists specific editions and translations. That's the distinguishing feature of Discogs. Otherwise I might as well use a site like Good Reads or LibraryThing.

Or am I missing something?

Or am I missing something?

No, you're not missing anything. It is one of the most requested features during this beta. Hang in there and help us build this site into something amazing.

Okeydokes. Obviously master releases will help with specific editions, which will in turn fuel a marketplace and the submissions that brings. Looking forward to that.

Still in favor of Master Release or Master Edition or whatever you want to call it.

I think Master Releases will have to be more complex than on Discogs.

For instance, let's take a novel like Dicken's Great Expectations. Firstly, such a novel will have gone through thousands of editions. Simply putting the editions into a chronological list will still be cumbersome to scroll through and not particularly useful. Within the Master Release there will need to be a way of differentiating translations (does a translation count as its own release -- and if so, what about different translations of the same book), as well as reprints and reissues of the same edition (as opposed to different editions).

This of course becomes even more complicated when different authors are in different editions of books: e.g. Thomas Pynchon recently wrote an introduction to Orwell's 1984 . Does this mean that all editions of 1984 will show up on Pynchon's page? Or only the variations that include his introduction, and then how will this be organised?

Personally I think this knots and difficulties will be fun challenges to try and think our way around. And let us not forget that the database will never be perfect, there will always be improvements to be made.

I think Master Releases will have to be more complex than on Discogs.

Definitely. There are obviously several options how to achieve this, we (or the management) just has to pick up one.

One option would be:
Title
-- Language
-- -- Edition

So for example with Great Expectations we would have:
Great Expectations
-- English
-- -- Great Expectations (Chapman and Hall, 1861)
-- -- Great Expectations (Chapman and Hall, 1862)
-- Finnish
-- -- Suuria odotuksia (Karisto, 1934)
-- -- Loistava tulevaisuus (Otava, 1960)

There has been also some talk about printings and states, which are extremely important for book collectors and sellers. They could be added to the structure, but I just wonder if it would be too much, and if there would be another option.

Title
-- Language
-- -- Edition
-- -- -- Printing
-- -- -- -- State

A book enters the world by a specific publisher in a specific country. The first print, I have always thought, should be the root of the book's grouping, whether you call it a master release, original title, or whatever.

Beyond that, it could be organized by publisher with either language or chronology as the criterion. Chronology makes more sense to me.

But we've been talking about this for a year now. I specifically added Paul Auster first editions to the database and I now see that Spanish language editions are also being added. That is great, but I think that we need to move forward on this before the database gets to be too big.

I think we could reconsider the Master Release matter:
Is it time to ask for adding this new section to database? (@seaburns)
You all know it is a useful tool for checking duplicated releases
Also I know is not as simple as discogs, here we have the translated works, with differnt countries, different editions, diff printings, diff states,... Eg:
Well i think it could be define a "Master Title" --- "The Catcher In The Rye" including all different master releases sort by language:
- The Catcher in The Rye (ENG)
- El Guardian En El Centero (ESP)
- À Espera no Centeio (PORT)
- ...
And every Submaster Release including all editions

Just look what is happening in Goodreads.com: https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/3036731-the-catcher-in-the-rye with 376 different releases from the same novel

Two years in the making and still no "master" record! The lack of this was the primary reason I delayed using this site for so long.

I really don't think it would be such a huge task as at first it seems. There already exists a very adaptable lookup system - in that you can use a non-book 'grouping' record (or whatever it might be called) in more or less any capacity: a 'Series' (that I just pulled out of thin air) named "Fruits of the Forest" can be attached to a book record as a Publisher or Illustrator just as easily as Series and still link to the same group.

Why not (the devs) create a book property "Work" and the user suffix its data with {M} or something. The 'grouping record' would be created for the specified value and you could attach all occurrences of that work to that value.

Ok, that's not so clear, so let me try an example:
You add an edition of "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", enter "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? {M}" as its Work value. All other existing editions and impressions can be edited to set Work to the same value. Then you only need to find the {M} variant of the title and you have a master record with loadsabooks.

If the devs can also provide a "Appears In" list-type property you can take care of compendiums too by linking either to one or more {M} records or individual books.

Make the Work property more formal and you wouldn't need to manually append the {M}; the site back-end could do that for you.

If a set of decent filtering functions are added to all grouping records (sorely needed anyway) - where all that group's properties' values were enumerated as links - and you could whittle down even the largest list quickly.

I don't know what language/framework bookogs uses but as a software developer of some 20 years myself (8 of them with php) it doesn't strike me as too great a challenge at least in principle.

(and please could someone sort out the paragraph justify in this forum!
I feel like a code-breaker piecing broken lines together!)

I concur with xceque's comments about the need for a MR type system. Until this is implemented and the SBN/ISBN data is searchable then I feel Bookogs lags behind comparable sites.

Gizmex
2 years ago

"Yes & about key release.
Key edition should be always the oldest published edition.
Key edition should be always edition in original language
list of editions in one master release should be sorted by date, from the oldest to the newest.
How do You think?"

+1 :)

I would suggest that we differentiate between text variations and non text variations.

rough concept:
(Artist > Titles) > Languages > Editions > Non-Text Variations

As a hierarchy for Masters.

oh by the way, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde hasnt been mentioned before

https://www.bookogs.com/book/120732-dr-jekyll-und-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/120000-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/218056-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/203039-the-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/306502-the-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde

https://www.bookogs.com/book/7790-dr-jekyll-y-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/305093-dr-jekyll-und-mr-hyde
https://www.bookogs.com/book/287194-tohtori-jekyll-ja-mr-hyde

https://www.bookogs.com/book/72834-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-and-other-tales
https://www.bookogs.com/book/76202-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-and-other-stories-of-the-supernatural
https://www.bookogs.com/book/283301-the-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-and-other-tales-of-terror

For what it's worth, add me to the list of people who don't engage in this site until a Master Release option is installed.

Hi again, thinking about the MR issue, what do you think if we first try to find how to name it?
In filmogs it is used "Film" as MR, we could discuss about a name for a future MR, maybe:
"Written Work" or "Work"

Suggested that already. Nobody cared.

what do you think if we first try to find how to name it?

I think we need to also think what do we want to group up. If it was called "Written Work", or "Work", what counts as a "Work"? If going down the Filmogs road, it would be a novel, a short story, an article, a poem? Or are we going down the Discogs road where we are grouping up different versions of a publication, whether it's a book, a magazine, or something else?

I'd say the former (the flmogs route, although it's not strictly the same, it's similar enough).

Having a "work" as a sort of combination of book & credit could allow, in principle, multiple works attached to a single submission and to show all submissions featuring that work.
Most of the job is already done since there's already both releases and credits.
I really don't think it would be as much work as it first seems to develop.

A 'master/work' would be a credit with a smattering of extra properties. If a book then can have multiple works, with one mandatory, presto. Master with books, including compendiums.

Something would need to be done to take care of orphan subs - those without works (which would be all of them at first), but plonk on a button to list all those subs without works and the community could have at it in no time.

Is there any particular reason for not implementing this utterly essential feature?

Finally "Works" is here! And I think we only need to apply this "Works" field only in the case if there's more than one edition/version of this. So there should be a note like "fill this field if more than 1 edition/version is present on bookogs" for new users not familiar with discogs master releases.

That's great news! I think I need to do some testing... :-)

Agree with Phasics. In addition I'm a bit confused by 'Works' at the moment, just added 'The Collected Works of Martin Millar' and added the 3 titles it contains but they're not showing up as they aren't listed individually yet. Are they meant to link to something if they were listed? Also if someone later added the book would it link to this or any other collection?

https://www.bookogs.com/book/399180-the-collected-martin-millar

And I'm a little confused about the Works page fields...

Are the date, location and language fields for the original date, location and language?

Also there will be problems with choosing from this field between similar titled works but by different authors. For example "Great Expectations" by Kathy Acker and "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens. And in case with non-English origins of a work, how we should title it - by original language title or for example of internationally famous ones - by English variant like in case of authors.

mirva, yes, I think it is for original release. If not - what other options ? :)

Has someone worked it out already? Please post an example.

it's all in Works section. Example https://www.bookogs.com/work/399187-the-hobbit-or-there-and-back-again

If not - what other options ? :)

I don't know... Just want to be sure. :-)

Great feature! Next thing I'd want to see is to have also a Works option (next to the Books option) on every "credit" page. Too much to ask? :)

I think that's a great idea. :-)

Btw - what counts as a work? For example with short story anthologies - is every short story a work, or just the whole anthology?

It would be nice also if the Links list would include other Ogs sites than just Discogs. I think it would be nice to be able to link to film/comic adaptations.

Ooh. Turn your back for just three or four or five weeks and look what happens.

From the looks of it I'd say that an individual short story is a 'work' since each book can be linked to multiple works. So an anthology would have multiple works attached. The anthology would not be a work itself.

I haven't tried yet, but can a book have no Works?

Actually, an anthology it might be a Work, but it oughtn't have to be.

I have this: https://www.bookogs.com/book/305280-edgeworks-4-love-aint-nothing-but-sex-misspelled-the-beast-that-shouted-love-at-the-heart-of-the-world which is a collection of two volumes which are themselves collections. This would qualify as a Work.
Under this system, I wonder how that would... er... work.

Hey, you found it :) Thanks for testing this out already.
In answer to a few of your questions:
- Data, location and language fields are for the original date, location and language in which the work was published
- A Work's title should be created in the original language that the work was published. (e.g., the title of the Work for Crime And Punishment is Преступление И Наказание).
- Short stories in an anthology should be added as individual Works imo, but we're keen to get your thoughts on this too.
Thanks a lot for your suggestions so far! Some really solid ideas. If you have anything else you want to share, please do so here, or feel free to contact us via the chat button.

It appears that "author" field is mandatory in Work pages, but there exists a number of anonymous works. So we should have a special credit "Anonymous". Found this https://www.bookogs.com/credit/25328-anonymous Is it official one ?
And one side effect of this mandatory - we cannot rename a work to duplicate (I know this is a hidden unofficial feature for other types of pages :) )
Duplicates are already here https://www.bookogs.com/work/400424-mensagem and https://www.bookogs.com/work/400423-menssagem

Found this https://www.bookogs.com/credit/25328-anonymous Is it official one ?

I think so.

we cannot rename a work to duplicate

I think it's only because you need an author credit, so maybe it could be just directly renamed to another work?

And thanks for the answers, falsepriest.

Short stories in an anthology should be added as individual Works imo, but we're keen to get your thoughts on this too.

It depends on the purpose of the function: is it meant to group up literary works and other pieces of writing, or publications? Or both?

which is a collection of two volumes which are themselves collections

I think in cases where an author publishes a themed book of stories, or a book of poetry, it could be seen as both as a single literary work and a collection.

Maybe we should also consider how the Work was originally published, and/or whether it has been split up later. You know, whether there's any benefit in having separate Work pages for each individual piece of writing.

Am I making this too difficult?

I think that's a very good distinction, mirva. Consider how it was first published. Unless parts were later re-published, in which case additional Works should be created.

A volume of poems originally published as a collection would be a Work, but should selected poems from that original publication have been published later those individual poems ought to become Works. I guess the original collection entry should also be edited to have those Works attached... as well as the original single-volume Work?
It would be necessary to identify re-printings or later editions of the whole collection and identify volumes which contain the selections, which includes the original and its re-prints.

Hmm... as I'm typing this I'm seeing more complications so I'll post this and then have a think in the bath (where all my best thinking gets done).

Here's how it looks on www.fantlab.ru. Fahrenheit 451 for example
https://fantlab.ru/work5039

It should be good to add translator's name for every work if it possible.

I was thinking about it too but then some books have been translated to 100+ languages/dialects. It could get a little overwhelming.

How would we deal with this interesting case? Originally a book had one name, in next editions it was retitled, It was released in 30-40 editions under second name, and nobody remembers the first title. See example, sorry can't remember and example in English, so it's a Russian book, but I made explanation in English https://www.bookogs.com/work/404002-ot-dvukh-do-piati Should we rename it to original title ? What do you think ?

I'd say it should probably be under the original title. A work needs a single title, and 'original language title' exists in the Book entry, so the search could be made to find Works and Books based on the original title, any & all new titles or English language titles.

Might be tricky to find things at first, until the search is improved, but the data should always match the objects being recorded, rather than made to suit the current scope of the site. The site code should be improved to facilitate the its purpose.

There's a similar case with Schindler's List (https://www.bookogs.com/book/2602-schindlers-list) originally Schindler's Ark (https://www.bookogs.com/book/318732-schindlers-ark).

Ignore my typos. I wish there was a publicly visible timeline of various site developments so we could see how long it might be before we can edit our forum posts.

Should we rename it to original title ? What do you think ?

I actually faced a similar issue with Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None:
https://www.bookogs.com/work/401684-and-then-there-were-none

I went with the original US title as it seems to be the most used nowadays, for obvious reasons. I don't know if the original UK title is used anywhere anymore, most publishers seem to have abandoned it.

I think the preference should be on the original title, but it should be also considered how well-known the original title is, and whether it's still in use.

It is counter-intuitive to use an obscure main title that hasn't been used for a long time. In those cases I think it's better to leave it to Notes.

On second thought, maybe we could have "Alternative Titles" field for Works, similar to what Filmogs has?

I was thinking that too. Alternative titles could also include those under which it has been published in other languages, which would kill two birds with one stone. The other-language titles can be reached via the Book, but this way would make the search easier to implement. Although it's duplicating data, which is typically a big no no for databases.
Hmm...

Alternative titles could also include those under which it has been published in other languages, which would kill two birds with one stone.

Exactly. For those who are not familiar how they are in Filmogs, here's an example:
https://www.filmo.gs/film/14-star-wars

It's true though that it would duplicate data. On the other hand the Works page duplicates other data as well.

Newcomers start to add works for every passage in a book and in this example in English for German originals, e. g. Franz Kafka https://www.bookogs.com/book/404242-the-complete-stories. We need a better guiding notation on 'add book' page for newcomers.

Yeah, those should be in German but otherwise that's correct, as those are short stories?

There is a guide to the submission form, but I think there should be a link to it in the submission form: https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/step-by-step-guide-to-the-bookogs-submission-form

But there is not stated, that included works should be credited in the language / under the title of the first publishing!

Yeah, that should be added there.

If you scroll up this thread a little bit, falsepriest said:

"A Work's title should be created in the original language that the work was published. (e.g., the title of the Work for Crime And Punishment is Преступление И Наказание)."

Yes, I knew that. But a newcomer who reads the guide (and not even everyone does so as we know) could,understandably, think it's correct to credit works as they are listed on the item.

Yeah, of course, and I think everyone understands that. That's why I suggested adding it to the Wiki article, and then adding a link to it in the submission form for better visibility.

Mistakes happen to everyone, but they are not a huge deal as they can be fixed most of the time. In this case the titles can be easily changed just by editing the Works.

I'm on holidays at present and just logged on to switch off notifications from Bookogs (thanks to the new Works feature I have received over 200 notifications in 10 days).

The introduction of the Works feature is a welcome addition and I really haven't the time to fully explore its functionality at present. I just added a couple of books to test it and the only suggestion I could make is having a Series field in Works, for example https://www.bookogs.com/work/405009-the-clan-of-the-cave-bear

I also managed to create a duplicate because of Wikipedia's idiosyncratic use of capitals. Has there been a discussion on adhering to standard capitalization for the title in Works?

mirva it seems you have managed to clone yourself, as I can't believe one person can complete the amount of work you are performing. I trust you haven't switched from tea to coffee:)

Uh, I almost went crazy with the Conan Doyle stories... I'm not quite done yet, but I needed a break. Enjoy your holidays. :-)

Has there been a discussion on adhering to standard capitalization for the title in Works?

No, at as far as I know. I'm just assuming the same "use whatever caps you want" rule applies to all capitalization at the moment.

At least I don't have to watch the Discogs monster caps all the time, though some users still seem to prefer them... I don't get it. :P

I apologise if this has been dealt with previously.

I have been amusing myself by adding some "Works". I have just struck the situation where a series of short stories by Ernest Hemingway first appeared in a collected edition titled Men Without Women (1927). Many of these short stories were subsequently republished as individual works in various collections.

So, I am assuming that Men Without Women is treated as a "Works" and each short story as a "Works".

Just for the record, 10 of the short stories appearing in the collected edition Men Without Women were first published in various magazines.

So, I am assuming that Men Without Women is treated as a "Works" and each short story as a "Works".

According to the Works wiki page "a Work is the artistic creation (e.g. novel, short story, poem, play)", so based on that, only each short story should be a Work.
https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/works-master-pages-on-bookogs

I have also just got back from holiday and I am excited to see this new function...

The short story collection question is a really interesting one.

Take a collection like James Joyce's "Dubliners", which is a collection short stories, but so clearly designed as a single over-arching work (as he himself suggested in letters). Nonetheless, the individual stories (especially "The Dead") have been republished many times on their own. In cases such as this I would strongly argue that the collection IS a work and so are the individual stories.

In fact, I would argue a similar case for "Men Without Women", not necessarily because of Hemingway's intent, but because as a singular work it had a really important cultural impact and shaped Anglo-American modernist literature.

By the way, I am sorry if I am going over ground already covered in the tens of posts above!

No, you're not. This question did come up earlier, but there was no answer to it.

Personally I'd tend to agree that in some cases both the collection and the individual stories could be considered as Works. I was just wondering that if we allow some collections to be listed as Works, then where do we draw the line? Only single-author collections? Only important, or well-known collections? Only collections where the content hasn't been previously published? Themed collections?

Also, we probably do need a second grouping function that groups up publication variations.

It really is a tricky scenario, because you have a group of short stories that were first published in periodicals, journals etc, and then they were published in a collected work (many SF works are a good example of this). This collected work is probably well known to the reading public. Later, many of these short stories were, and continue to be, published singly or together in books with new titles.

IMO to ignore the collected work would be an oversight. To give an example, nearly every Ray Bradbury book.

I am currently cleaning up the Franz Kafka issue (i.e. changing English titles into the original German), and many of his short stories were first published in two collected works: Betrachtung (1912) and Ein Landarzt (1919). Do we totally ignore these two collections as Works?

I am wondering if the Works page should have two separate entry fields: one for books, and one for short stories as a means of differentiation.

By the way, that Franz Kafka problem is not isolated: I have just spent an hour or two changing about 50 Woody Allen short story titles from Portuguese to English. This really has the potential to be a mess. What started out as a means of consolidating data could ultimately do the opposite.

"I am wondering if the Works page should have two separate entry fields: one for books, and one for short stories as a means of differentiation."

That's the point.
If anthologies are ignored as "works" you can't compare the different editions/impressions/translations, what, I think, is one of the main reasons, to have a "master release".
And, what if anthologies are included in a collection/omnibus edition? At the moment, the single stories and the book itself would be included works, which is kind of double trouble, because the stories are already listed within the anthologie?!

About the translation/title language/different title problem:
How about a main field for the original title and a second one for the title on that special release, maybe similar to the alternative name function?

BadMoon, I totally agree that an ANV facility for titles would be a welcome inclusion as essentially data is being lost in these circumstances (even more so when it is impossible to access the first version of the history).

One solution to the multiple layers of a given work would be to introduce a "Form" or "Genre" option to the work. You could choose whether the work would be one of the following:

Novel
Short Story
Short Story Collection
Poetry Collection
Poem
Essay Collection
Essay

and so forth. Although this would add an additional level, it would mean that in the future when we can navigate through an author's works we could select certain sub-groups of works.

p.adkins, great suggestion.

Agreed, that would probably solve the problem.

Should novellas and plays, and their respective collections be added to the list as well?

I think so (although perhaps novellas and novels could share a category since their boundaries are fluids?). And anthology should be a category too, I think.

The difficult question will be around non-fiction titles, which could easily fragment into lots of genres and sub-genres. Would just "Non-Fiction Book" be too broad?

The term novella has a strict definition but it is often misused, so I would just forget it. Plays should definitely be on the list.

Anthology is unnecessary as Short Story Collection, Poetry Collection and Essay Collection are the same things. I would also add Plays Collection to that list.

IMO Non-Fiction is fine as the actual book submissions contain the fleshed out genre data.

I sometimes wonder why the more experienced users aren't asked by the site developers for feedback about new features prior to their introduction. That is not meant as a bi**hy comment, just an observation.

although perhaps novellas and novels could share a category since their boundaries are fluids?

I'd prefer to have it separately just for the sake of clarity, so that users don't have to really think which option to use. But in the end, either way works.

Would just "Non-Fiction Book" be too broad?

I don't think so. I think the Genre list already covers a lot, so we don't need to be so specific.

Though I would probably add Periodical, and Article.

Would it be too harsh if we only had "Collection"? I mean there are plenty of collections that are a mix.

A novella by definition is a work somewhere between 7,500 and 40,000 words. Depending on the font used this is an average of between 30 pages and 150 pages. I just had a quick look at the books that have used novella as a genre and I would estimate 50% don't qualify. One book has a page count of 591 pages and is listed as a novella! As I said most people don't understand the term.

"Collection" I think would work really well and is a term that could applied to a number of different books in a very coherent way.

Is there a strict difference between an essay and an article?

Is there a strict difference between an essay and an article?

I don't know, tbh. Looks like the meaning of essay is more vague in English than in Finnish. We separate essays from periodical and scientific articles.

As I said most people don't understand the term.

I think it's a language issue more than anything. Also there are lot of people that do understand the term, and some works are specifically advertised as novellas. It will equally confuse users if we don't have it - they won't know whether to list it as a novel or a short story.

But like I said, either way works. Both options will result in some confusion (what option here doesn't... :P)

I'm assuming that we should not add Works for comics even if they were included in a book?

Difficult, as they would probably get a "subjekt" credit anyway (if it's a non-fiction book). IMO, a link to comicogs on the credit page is sufficient.
Would we include music on CD or movies on DVD, if they are part of a magazine bundle or something? Or a painting, used as cover image?

I'm not sure if comparing comics to completely different media is the right way to go, as comics are published in the same way than other content here is.

But anyway, there are many examples, but the book that raised the question was this:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/277950-muumien-matkassa

There are three comics included (Moomin on the Riviera, for example) in addition to the short stories, novel excerpts and other stuff. But I've left them out for now, because I'm guessing they are as welcome here as comic books.

I am going through James Joyce at the moment and several translations of Ulysses saw the novel published in two parts. Should both be linked to the work, or neither?

Also, books where only extracts from Ulysses are published (such as "The Essential James Joyce" which only features a handful of chapters), am I right to assume we should not link to the work?

In the first case, the reasonable thing to do is to link to the work in question,
For the second case, I'm not sure.

I agree that in the first case it's probably ok to link the partial works to the work.

I'm not sure if there's any harm in linking the extracts either, at least as long as it's clearly indicated that it's not the full work.

This reminds me of a "short story" I saw yesterday that is actually an excerpt from a novel. Any ideas what to do with that?

This reminds me of a "short story" I saw yesterday that is actually an excerpt from a novel. Any ideas what to do with that?

Seems to me to be the same situation as the extract question.

I notice that Works are being created for short stories and collections that have the same name. I have been using the standard bracketed variation number along with the title as the means of differentiation. I notice that other users have used bracketed terms such as (Short Story Collection) and (Short Story) as a point of difference.

No doubt this situation will continue to arise, so it would be helpful to get a consensus on an acceptable standard method.

Seems to me to be the same situation as the extract question.

Yeah, and in that case it wouldn't be a big deal as it has been only published in one anthology, at least as far as I know. If it had been extracted a long ago, and published several times as a 'separate' work, then it might be logical to create a separate Works page for it.

I notice that other users have used bracketed terms such as (Short Story Collection) and (Short Story) as a point of difference.

Yeah, it works in a case like that, but what if we have two novels with the same? Having (Novel) and (Novel) is not helpful. In that sense the numbers work better.

I have to admit though that having the number as a suffix isn't much more helpful. One would need to open the pages to see what the entries are for.

I still wish we didn't have to enter anything extra in the title and name fields. It's not impossible, other databases seem to be able to do it.

Just thinking about this situation, conceivably the Works database will contain the names of the collections and the short stories of the same name by the one author, but will have titles of the same name by other authors.

I think the bracketed variation number is the only logical way of separating these titles.

One thing I have been doing is adding links between the collection and the short story. This is rather time consuming.

what if we have two novels with the same? Having (Novel) and (Novel) is not helpful.

We can always have different entries with the exact same name, as in Filmogs. Not the best idea, but definitely one to consider.

mirva I'm sure your reply wasn't there when I posted my second comment.

I suppose we could just forget about using bracketed information altogether. Although I did encounter a situation where Franz Kafka wrote two stories by the same name, so I used a variation number to differentiate the later version.

We can always have different entries with the exact same name, as in Filmogs.

Is that technically possible with Works? At least Credits used to automatically link to the existing entry even if you didn't pick it from the list, so I automatically assumed it's not possible with Works either.

Hopefully in the future the list will show more than just the name - image, author, and for example the suggested 'Form' option.

Instead of:

Dust (Novel)
Dust (Novel)

or

Dust
Dust (2)

we would get something like this:

Dust - Patricia Cornwell (Novel)
Dust - Hugh Howey (Novel)

That would work in the Virginia Woolf example as well:

Moments of Being - Virginia Woolf (Collection)
Moments of Being - Virginia Woolf (Short Story)

But that would need some system updates. Within the current system none of the solutions is perfect, and we have to check the links to be certain that they are linking to the correct Work no matter what, so I guess any of the solutions is "ok".

Some great points here about works with the same name and I am happy to "out" myself as the person using the "(Novel)" "(Short Story)" format.

The option that Mirva outlines above sounds best to me.

I can see the use of using number to differentiate works with the same title by different authors, but I think it would be confusing with the same author.

For instance if we have "A Haunted House (1)" and "A Haunted House (2)" both attributed to Virginia Woolf, it will be laborious to work out which belongs to which. This is complicated since there are at least three unique works by Woolf under this title (a story, a story collection and later, the complete stories).

As for the excerpt question, I have to say that I am against linking excerpts. I think that the Work function will be most useful if it only lists the books in which the work has been printed in full (an abridged version of a novel - for instance - is to my mind a unique work). If I click on Joyce's Ulysses as a work and see the thousands of places where bits of it have been reprinted then the interesting publication history of the novel will be completely obscured. This might reflect what I find useful about the db, rather than how others hope to use it.

I concede this is a complex matter and my only reservation about starting a new system of naming is whether it can be implemented by all users effectively. The use of a bracketed variation number is fairly well understood, but will users maintain a system that uses Title - Author (Format)?

As for the excerpt question. If we don't link it to the original work, then I assume this would require some other form of differentiation such as a bracketed Title - Author (Excerpt). Personally, I would like all items kept with the original work, for example abridgements are not always made obvious, such as large print books.

I also have a few thoughts on the Works system.

The author's name is not automatically entered into the Works. I know there are obstacles to this because in the case of collected works where there are multiple authors it would be impossible for the system to allocate an author. I have found that when an author is not listed and you have a submission in Russian Cyrillic, trying to determine the author of a short story is a painstaking task. I have been scrolling through the Works list and completing the author names but as the number of pages is now above 40, I really haven't got the time or inclination to keep doing this. I envisage a time when the database is populated with Works that have no authors and users abandon them as it is easier to generate a new one.

We have spoken about a separate Works form/genre list (similar to album, single, compilation in Discogs; something like Novel/Novella, Short Stories/Essays, Collections, Plays) in Works which I think is a great idea. It would be wonderful to access an author's page and see a list of his/her Works categorised by form instead of multiple editions of the same work. One of the ideas I have had is having some kind of colour surround around the credit image to identify the form, e.g. Blue=Novel/Novella, Red=Short Story, etc. I suppose it wouldn't be much use if your colour blind. I still don't understand how the Works will eventually be displayed, if at all. Not being able to see them listed makes generating them a somewhat difficult process (the Stephen King database was horrific, pardon the pun).

It is my understanding that a new editing page is going to be released soon that will display thumbnail images of the credits, so hopefully this might help to alleviate some of the identification problems.

The use of a bracketed variation number is fairly well understood, but will users maintain a system that uses Title - Author (Format)?

I probably wasn't clear enough, but I did not suggest that it would be users who would maintain this but it would be something generated by the system. Currently when entering a work, and choosing it from the list, you only see the title of the work on the list. I was suggesting improving the list display/view - it should be possible for the system display more than just the title. But again, this would need to be taken care by the devs, not us.

It would be wonderful to access an author's page and see a list of his/her Works categorised by form

Agreed. Though we probably need both release and work views as not everyone is an author. :-)

Sorry, mirva as I did think you were suggesting users were going to be fully responsible for adding the extra details to the title. I would be the first to vote for it if the system generated this automatically.

Good point about the Works view not being relevant in all of the other credits apart from the author. I have been so focused on authors for the last 10 days or so, that I had forgotten we credit other things. Maybe authors need to be flagged in some way, so that their databases display differently. One for the site developers to nut out maybe.

Anaideia, you are doing a brilliant job creating and group the works, thank you!

I appreciate the feedback, but I think that should equally be applied to everyone who is creating Works.

It is a mammoth task but I believe that with the help of everyone we can complete the job.

Maybe authors need to be flagged in some way

Another option would be just to make the Works view the primary view, and if there are no Works, then display releases. Similarly how in Discogs Releases is the primary view. If there are no releases, then Appearances are displayed, and if there are no appearances, Credits.

The "Works" view could be beneficial also on Series pages, but that would mean we would have to link the works to the series first.

Another option would be just to make the Works view the primary view, and if there are no Works, then display releases.

Good idea.

The "Works" view could be beneficial also on Series pages, but that would mean we would have to link the works to the series first.

I feel that series should be an entry field in the Works page. I have been adding links where applicable in Notes. Heaven help us if HTML is switched off!

I feel that series should be an entry field in the Works page.

Definitely, since they are directly author-related. That way the series pages would display the works in the series instead of just the releases that include the works.

Heaven help us if HTML is switched off!

Well, it wouldn't be the end of the world - they did that at Discogs at one point. I just hope they offer other means to link the data before they do. :-)

So, as it's not currently possible to create two works with the exactly same name, which naming method should we proceed with for the time being?

Haha, I actually managed to do it by renaming one of them afterwards...

I would have thought it possible as it happens all the time with Credits. I wouldn't think Works Credits would be any different.

At least I can't create two identical Credits anymore (other than renaming that is). Even if I don't pick the credit from the list, if the exactly same credit appears in the database, it automatically links to that.

There must have been a system change. I must admit I haven't intentionally put it to the test, but now that you mention it there has been a sharp reduction in the incidence of credits with the same name.

I don't believe what constitutes an appropriate image for a Works Credit has been discussed.

I noticed that a user had uploaded an image of what is a company logo to a Works Credit. I disabled the image and left a comment that normally these images are either of the first edition cover or the first edition title page.

I see the user then reenabled the image and made the comment that this is the official logo of the book: https://www.bookogs.com/work/400579-trinity-hymnal

Personally, I feel the image belongs on a company Credit and not a Works Credit.

What do other users think?

^^Of course, a Work image should be either of the first edition cover or the first edition title page (or, as someone else wrote, of a very early edition, in the case of books originally published centuries ago).

My first thought was, that there should only be the item itself be imaged. But, as there are probably not so many books out there, that have their own symbol, maybe exeptions are possible, if it's the logo from the beginning and not a later creation.

It seems the image is for the book, actually. I couldn't find a reference to a company called "Trinity Hymnal".

I would prefer a picture of a book cover, or a title page, but if that logo is commonly used on these books, then I think it's ok as well.

The picture issue did come up here: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/403761-works

I don't think that is the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Hymnal According to Wikipedia the Trinity Hymnal was originally compiled by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1961. There have been several editions and one specially produced for the Reformed Baptist congregations.

This is the website for Great Commission Publications who publish the Trinity Hymnal: https://www.gcp.org/TrinityHymnal.aspx

I just searched for Trinity Hymnal logo changes and found an image of the original 1961 edition with a different logo I might add. But as I have sourced the correct image I will now upload it.

I still think we should be sticking to an image of the first edition cover or the first edition title page.

Just to expand on this subject. If we allow users to upload images of successive editions to Works Credits this could run to hundreds of images. To my mind at least this would be ludicrous, isn't that the point of adding book submissions with images?

mirva you have a habit of responding as I am in the process of composing a comment:-)

As you see I have found an image of the 1961 edition and uploaded it. I hope the matter has been sorted.

Gees, I can't even remember responding to that forum topic: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/403761-works

Time for a break.

I was under the impression that this page was analogous to a Discogs-style Label (or Series) profile page, where a logo would be appropriate, but I see that it is not.

Can this info be codified in the wiki?

JT_X I agree it is a bit confusing and I do apologise as I assumed the logo that you uploaded belonged to a company. I now realise that it is a stylized alpha and omega symbol which was featured on the front cover of the first edition, albeit in a different form.

The Works credits have only recently been introduced so this feature needs to be codified probably under Submitting & Research on the Wiki page. Normally a staff member updates this page, but I assume because there are a number of new features under development at present that they just haven't had the time.

I was wondering if it is worth a stock image for short stories as in many cases there is not an image of the first edition. It might be a way of differentiating these from collections which often have the same name. I found a free image of pen and ink and added the lettering. This is the image: https://imgur.com/a/Lda0M93

I am more interested in the idea of having a stock image rather than the actual design at present. Feel free to comment.

I was wondering if it is worth having a stock image for short stories, as in many cases there is not an image of the first edition. It might be a way of differentiating these from collections which often have the same name. I found a free image of pen and ink and added the lettering. This is the image: https://imgur.com/a/Lda0M93

I am more interested in the idea of having a stock image rather than the actual design at present. Feel free to comment.

I think this is a great idea.

I would also like to get alerts set up for when a new book by a certain author is added. This will help with maintaining works.

Thanks for the feedback.

After thinking about this, maybe it could be expanded to all Works - have a "format" stock image for any work that we don't have an image for? Similar to the formats that we were talking about: Novel, Short Story, Poem, Essay, Play, Non-Fiction etc.

Follow-up thought/question: Is only the first edition cover allowed as the main image? If we don't have an image for the first edition, could an image of another, early edition work - or would the stock image be the preferred solution?

I was thinking the same about extending the stock image idea to other formats. Although I was only considering plays, essays and poems. I think in most examples of novels and non-fiction books you would be able to source some sort of cover image.

I agree that some leniency should be allowed with first edition covers as sometimes they just don't exist. If it is impossible to source then I think an early edition would be fine. This relaxing of the rules would greatly assist with plays.

For books written in smaller, uncommon languages, it can be hard to find any image of the book online, especially if the book is a bit older, and is not popular/relevant anymore. So I'd think the stock image would be still useful for novels and non-fiction.

I agree that some leniency should be allowed with first edition covers as sometimes they just don't exist. If it is impossible to source then I think an early edition would be fine.

Sounds good to me.

I was hoping for some more comments on my stock image idea, but maybe three assents (I include myself) is sufficient to move forward on this idea.

I added some more stock images to my link based on mirva's expanded list: https://imgur.com/a/Lda0M93

I'm not the most creative person on the planet, so I don't doubt someone else will be able to design some better images.

"...someone else will be able to design some better images. "
OK, the text is clear & readable, the pictures are nice and in relation to the toppic, how could it be made better? Don't fix something that isn't broken.

I like the idea, but there should be easy access (alternate upload image / stock image), as I guess lots of users just look for the simple way. When I sometimes watch new book submissions, and there is NOTHING except title, author and maybe language, my hair starts turning grey (and I guess it's getting thinner too).

Stock images are fine, I think it makes Bookogs a more attractive site.

I'd like the images to be more consistent design-wise. Like for example if we take the Discogs placeholder images:
Artist: https://www.discogs.com/artist/333214-Dom-Chacal
Label: https://www.discogs.com/label/931123-Do-Not-Use-Records
CD: https://www.discogs.com/SkoTorp-My-Intuition/release/3771290
Cassette: https://www.discogs.com/Procol-Harum-Shine-On-Brightly/release/4404594
etc.

That kind of consistency would be nice... I would come up with some suggestions but I don't have the time. Don't we have any digital artists/designers here? Doesn't Ogs have a graphic designer in their staff who could whip up quickly something like that?

If not, then I'm good to go forward with Anadeia's suggestions. One thing I would ask though: could at least they all be consistently either in plural or singular? :-)

Thanks mirva. I totally agree that they lack homogeneity and it would be far better to have a similar graphic style. The problem I encountered was trying to source a relevant image that was royalty free. I don't have any graphic skills, so I will leave this task for someone who has.

That is a good point about singular and plural. I would personally opt for a singular title.

One for the staff: it would be handy to have the Works credits listed in Latest Edits and Latest Additions in the Browse section. I try to keep an eye out for any anomalies but the only way I can do this is by scrolling through the Works database. Now that the number of Works credits is at 3,100+ this is becoming an onerous task.

I would personally opt for a singular title.

Same here. & I hope you didn't take my words as too discouraging.

When it comes to browsing Works, are these the kind of options that you were asking?
https://www.bookogs.com/browse/work?sort=date_added,desc
https://www.bookogs.com/browse/work?sort=date_changed,desc

I hope you didn't take my words as too discouraging

Not at all. As much as I would like to design an alternative, I really don't have the skills nor the software that would make this task relatively straightforward.

Thanks for those filters. It certainly beats scrolling through 78 pages of titles!

I was asked by a user today if they should create a Works credit for a magazine, and now I see another user has just created a Works credit for a magazine: https://www.bookogs.com/book/419924-hereford-united-v-darlington-endsleigh-insurance-league-division-3-play-off-1995-1996-official-matchday-magazine

Personally, I don't see the point as a magazine is a one off edition and there shouldn't be any variations that could be collected by the Works credit.

Does anyone have a contrary opinion?

I will add that I don't have any problems copy and pasting links into Websites.

Unless there are multiple editions of a specific magazine issue (it is rare but I know a few cases), the creation of a Work for a magazine issue makes no sense to me.

Whoops! Please disregard my previous comment as this is meant for another forum thread.

kwulf I agree if there were multiple editions of the same magazine a Works credit would make sense. But as you remarked, it is a fairly rare occurrence.

The example given above was mine. I guess when I added it I was under the misaprehension that it would be a good way of grouping a series of editions of magazines under it's title so that all editions appeared together This was simple a misuderstanding of what the "Works" function was and with hindsight I would agree that it shouldn't be used in the way that I had attempted to. I have edited that sub to remove it.

Unless there are multiple editions of a specific magazine issue (it is rare but I know a few cases), the creation of a Work for a magazine issue makes no sense to me.

Agreed.

Thanks srabbull for your response. The Works feature has just been introduced and the method in which it is used is still open to interpretation. As I stated, another user had exactly the same question so you are not alone.

I have added a Periodical Title credit to your submission, so that all copies of Bullseye will be collected in the one database.

Yeah, and in that case it wouldn't be a big deal as it has been only published in one anthology, at least as far as I know. If it had been extracted a long ago, and published several times as a 'separate' work, then it might be logical to create a separate Works page for it.

Returning to the excerpt/extract issue, what to do with Apuleius' Cupid and Psyche? It's from The Golden Ass, but has been published separately various times. It feels a bit odd to link it to the full work.

I notice that a user has again added a Works credit for magazine after I explained that this is generally not required.

I think the reason for this is because the editor page states that the Works Title is a required field.

This is misleading because at present adding a Works Title is not mandatory, and as per the previous comments in this thread, adding a Works credit for a periodical is unnecessary unless there are multiple editions of the one issue.

I have found that the ANV function for the Works credit is not present when generating the first Works.

This is a nuisance when the generating submission is not the original language of the Works credit. I need to create the Works then re-edit the generating submission to add the ANV.

But the ANV is never available when creating a new credit (or anything). I guess, the system can only process ANVs on something that already exists.

But I cursed over it a few times already.

I was going to say try doing a list of short stories in Polish that were originally in English, but then again you probably find this all the time with German and English. It pays to have a good memory.

It seems that now, for some reason, when adding an ANV, the cursor is automatically outside of the parentheses, when it used to be inside.

I wonder every time how you handle all that polish and russian stuff.

Is it just me, or do most foreign publishers use translations of the original title (strict or by meaning)?
Here in Germany, they sometimes put the weirdest kind of word processing on books, I guess for marketing reasons (even worse with movies). .
Like, when Stephen King's "It" came across, they translated it correctly to "Es", but after that, every horror novel got a one word title, no matter what. And worst of all, Mr. King's own "Misery" becoming "Sie" (She). But my favourite is a really old one, Robert Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters" which became (re-translated) "Space Mollusks conquer the Earth". in it's first german printing.

I find the foreign titles of English books and films an endless source of amusement. Often they are a direct translation but sometimes they are quite bizarre. The Japanese take this to a whole other level.

I can see the reasoning behind "Space molluscs conquer the Earth". The space creatures were slug (nacktschnecke) like. Slugs being a mollusc (Weichtier) - maybe just a bit too literal.

I just completed the profile for Milan Kundera's novel Kniha smíchu a zapomnĕni (English: The Book of Laughter and Forgetting): https://www.bookogs.com/work/430930-kniha-smichu-a-zapomneni

This book was written in 1978 with the Czech title Kniha smíchu a zapomnĕni, but it was first published in France with the French title Le Livre du rire et de l'oubli in 1979. Should the Works title be for the Czech name or the French name?

As it was originally written in Czech, I'd use the Czech title. I think it would be a little odd to use a translated title.

I have noticed this question relates to several of his books which were written in Czech but first published in French, including The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Czech: Nesnesitelná lehkost bytí) but first published in French translation as L'Insoutenable légèreté de l'être.

Yes I agree with your comment. I was slightly confused when I saw one of your submissions had recorded the Original Language as French and the Original Language title as La Lenteur: https://www.bookogs.com/book/284525-kiireettomyys

However, I have discovered that book was actually written and published in French. All good.

Yeah, he started writing in French sometimes in the early/mid-90s. :-)

Stephen King's It
https://www.bookogs.com/work/406486-it
was published in a limited (250 pcs) collector's edition in Germany, 4 - 6 weeks prior to the first US printing The content of this translation (same as the first German standard editions) differs slightly from the english language publishings, as the manuscript King send was revised once more, before being handed to the US publisher.
So date and location on the master release are some kind of incorrect, but as this was "only" a translation, I would not change language in any case. But to have Germany as location and English as language seems confusing to me, as it wasn't the english version published.
Just leave "It" as it is and add a note to the notes?

Very interesting. That's the problem when we have a user who knows more than the Wiki page. Personally, I would just add a detail to the notes of the Work. A 250 book print run is hardly a commercial release.

The alternative would be to create a Work credit for this German edition as it differs from the original.

You don't own a copy by chance, as I reckon they would be quite valuable these days?

According to several sources the book was unauthorized. It seems that they went ahead and published that without acquiring a license from anyone - most sources mention at least King, but probably Penguin and Heyne, the German licensee, had no clue of this either. Sounds like the translation was done from an uncorrected proof.

So, I would consider it just a curiosity, and mention it in the Notes.

https://www.veryfinebooks.com/Stephen_King_ES_Limited_Edition_German_p/sk1340.htm
The pictures on that page are pretty comprehensive, btw. ;-)

Thanks mirva. At least I got something right: they are fairly valuable. How many copies do you own BadMoon?

I just had a look at the link and whoever prepared the sales page is welcome to join Bookogs as that is very comprehensive set of images.

The "unauthorized" issue comes up every know and then, but it is not correct. Earlier in 1986, the same publisher, "Edition Phantasia", offered a collector's editition of "The Mist", titled "Nebel", limited to 500 copies. Stephen King disallowed the licensing contract between Heyne Verlag and Edition Phantasia and asked to pull the book back (of course they did so, nobody wants to spoil things with the King of Horrors).
There are no definite counts, but as it seems, there were at most 150 copies sold at that point, the rest was destroyed, which makes this a really rare item.
After that incident no one at Edition Phantasia or Heyne would have made such a contract without King's approval.

By the way, this edition is called "the red brick" among Germany's King fans.

The "unauthorized" issue comes up every know and then, but it is not correct.

Is there a source where this could be confirmed? Because basically all the collector sites say it's a bootleg, here are a few more examples in addition to the one above:
https://books.hyraxia.com/6089-stephen-king-es-edition-phantasia-1986-limited-edition
http://www.stephenkingcollector.com/uklimited/it.html
http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showwiki.php?title=IT+-+German+Bootleg

https://www.stephen-king.de/fuer-fans/sammlerstuecke/limitiert-edition-phantasia.html
https://www.kingwiki.de/index.php/ES
Furthermore, in George Beahm's "The Stephen King Companion", published in 1989, both Edition Phantasia books are mentioned, stating "Es" to be the first ever printing worldwide and "Nebel" to be unautorized and destroyed for the most part.

I should have left the Stephen King Works for you BadMoon. I have only read 3 of his books.

Oh no, you're doing very well!
I would go nuts over that amount of publishings, reissues, expanded versions, special editions and whatever. .

Dealing with the Works of Stephen King and Agatha Christie has nearly driven me to insanity. I am still creating bits and pieces. However, if you ever see an error, feel free to correct it. I won't be hiding in the drain (or the library) ready to leap out at the next unsuspecting user.

I need a moment to get that picture out of my head...

no, it's etched.

Anyone have access to the issue 30 of the Mystery Scene? According to rumors it includes an open letter from King where he mentions both Nebel and Es.

stating "Es" to be the first ever printing worldwide

That it is, there's no doubt about that, just whether it was authorized or not.

According to Editions Phantasia it was Heyne who authorized these, and also failed to acquire the permission from King at least when it comes to Nebel. They claim neither Es nor Nebel is a bootleg, but that's just denying the facts. They might have acted in good faith, but that doesn't make something unauthorized.

"They claim neither Es nor Nebel is a bootleg"
Do they? Is there a source where this could be confirmed?

"They might have acted in good faith, but that doesn't make something unauthorized."
That's right, but if I was in their place (received permission by copyrightholder [of the German rights]) I would not call myself a bootlegger.

I've found an interview with Joachim Körber, who translated a massive amount of King's books to German for Heyne and is one of the three founders of Edition Phantasia. He tells, that "Es" was published earlier than "Nebel" was (I couldn't find a date for Nebel, but on the infos from the net, I thought Es was the latter) and King was unhappy with his novel having it's world premiere not in the US but in Germany, but he never argued about the edition, at least not with Heyne or EP.
When "Nebel" was published, they sold 300 of the 500 copies to the American publishing house Underwood-Miller. At the behest of Mr. King, these books had to be sent back to destroy them, as he appealed against the licensing contract. They went directly to Heyne, not to ED and Körber is sure, some of the managers at Heyne grabbed a few of them (for lean times).
When the trouble came up, 80 - 100 pieces were already sold.

Do they? Is there a source where this could be confirmed?

Yes, their old website. I will post the link when I get back home. :-)

Here you go:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020515115020/http://www.edition-phantasia.de:80/english/books.htm

Stephen King
ES (IT)
ISBN 3-924959-06-4
Limited edition of 250 copies. World first edition. Published six months before the American edition and following a manuscript which was authorized by King's agent for translation, but later revised by the author, thus differing from the American edition. (Out of print)

Stephen King
NEBEL (THE MIST)
ISBN 3-924959-10-2
First separate German edition. Illustrated by Herbert Brandmeier. Signed by the artist.
Limited edition of 500 copies. Nearly the whole edition was destroyed on command of the author, who was obviously not informed of the project by his German mass market publisher, who authorized the limited edition. It is not a bootleg edition, as often quoted. (Out of print)

So they say it was unauthorized but not a bootleg? I guess they could think of a bootleg as something like a counterfeit?

some of the managers at Heyne grabbed a few of them (for lean times).

Oh, I'm sure they did. It happens all the time with cancelled items. :-)

A bootleg is a publication without a license.
They had a license, but (as I understand this whole case) King diddn't want to accept the contract, just because he wasn't informed about this edition, this makes it unauthorized.
Maybe this is just juggling with words, but, as I've said before, I would not call myself a bootlegger after receiving permission through a licensing contract with the copyright holder.

I don't understand, if "Es" was unauthorized too, why is there no official declare about it?

They had a license

Yeah, that seems to be the case. Without knowing the details of the contract its impossible to know though whether Heyne had the rights to give that license. If they didn't, then Nebel was unlicensed, a bootleg. This doesn't necessarily make EP a bootlegger, or even Heyne. It does sound a like a series of communication mishaps, and EP jumping the gun and publishing the book so fast.

if "Es" was unauthorized too, why is there no official declare about it?

Well, like you said, these type things are not something a publisher really wants to advertise. The current Editions Phantasia website seems to mention nothing about the whole ordeal.

The only word from King seems to be in the Mystery Scene article. There's no copy of it online, so I don't know what it exactly says but according to some, King was not happy about either of these editions. Considering that this happened in the 80s maybe he just found out about Es too late, and let it be. But that's just speculation at this point, so who really knows.

But, I wouldn't judge something as a bootleg if there is even a little bit of doubt. But taking into account the Mystery Scene article and the otherwise scarce details, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable declaring Es official either. Only time will tell, I guess.

It's a well-designed book, and I'm sure collectors will want it despite its legal status. Actually all the controversy probably makes it even more interesting. :-)

I really would like to read this article, just to know, what kind of problem King had with those books.

Me too, it just seems to be rare. Unfortunately the King collectors I know don't have it, and don't know anyone who would have it. :/

I'm impressed with the scholarly research. That leaves the question whether we create a separate Work credit for the "Red Brick" or do we simply add a detail to the Notes of the exisiting "It" Work credit? I'm easy.

I don't think there's need for a separate Work credit. As far as I know, it's not that different from the final version.

I agree, a separate work seems unnecessary.

I came across a couple of books on King's website that have revised editions listed separately: The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger (Revised), and The Stand: The Complete & Uncut Edition: https://www.stephenking.com/library/novel/

We don't seem to have a copy of the revised The Gunslinger in the database, but I have lumped https://www.bookogs.com/book/6507-the-stand-the-complete-and-uncut-edition in with The Stand Work credits.

Should I create a separate Work credits for both books based on King's listings?

I have only read the original versions, so I don't know how different the revised versions are.

In general, I would only create a separate work credit if the form has changed (for example the original being a short story, the new version a novel), and/or if the work has been basically rewritten. I wouldn't create a new work if it is still basically the same work, just with some changes.

Just think about films - I wouldn't create separate entries for director's cuts, extended cuts, and/or censored cuts.

O.K. so based on that criteria it seems like the original Work credit is sufficient in both examples. Unless of course, someone has an opinion that both revised editions are significantly different from the originals.

We had similar cases before (La Horla, Demon Seed) where it was chosen to create separate works, because of massive changes.
In case of The Stand, I would call a difference of 400 pages (823 - 1152) plus some revision & updates "massive".
On The Gunslinger, as I only know the old version, I'm referring to some research from the www:
although there are several changes, seemingly most of them to adjust it to the successors in language / names and plotline, the difference leads to only 35 pages (old version had 300 pages).

No need to doubt my math skills, of course it's not a difference of 400 on The Stand! Careless mistake, it was an amount of 400 pages Stephen King had to shorten the original script prior to the first publishing.

Yeah, I reckon 329 pages counts as a bit of a difference. I think I will create a unique Work credit for The Stand: The Complete & Uncut Edition. I think The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger (Revised) is close enough to the original to not warrant a unique Work credit.

Unless someone has a different opinion.

We had similar cases before (La Horla, Demon Seed) where it was chosen to create separate works, because of massive changes.

In the case of Le Horla, the two (or three, including Lettre d'un fou) versions are very different from each other. They all share the same protagonist, but Lettre d'un fou is a letter of confession to the doctor, in the first Le Horla he tells his story in front of the doctor and some of his colleagues, and the second Le Horla is presented as a diary by the protagonist. So they aren't just revisions of one written work, but the story completely rewritten three times.

That said, I would try to keep different versions under one work as much as possible. As long as it's basically the same piece of writing, there's no need for a separate work. There are a lot of works that have been revised, and have different versions in existence, so it'll be difficult to draw lines as the level of revision varies.

But if someone has some good ideas where else to draw the line (beyond revision vs rewrite), I'm willing to explore other possibilities. :-)

The tricky part is trying to make the call when you haven't read the book or story in question. I know there were a couple of Dean Koontz books that were significantly reworked and they received individual Work credits. Personally, I have no idea if that was correct or not.

I suppose it comes down to what are we trying to achieve with the Work credits. On the basis of what you just commented mirva, then an extract would be treated in the same way as a revised and expanded edition. I don't have a problem with that, but there needs to be a consistent application of the rule.

I agree Le horla is two different stories, so it would be wrong to collect them together under the one Work credit.

Here we are again on the toppic of not seeing works on the authors page (staff is in demand!).
I didn't knew that there are several separated works on Dean Koontz, as most of his revised titles are just slightly expanded / updated (Phantoms, The Funhouse) and only few are intensely rewritten (Demon Seed, Prison of Ice - Icebound).

then an extract would be treated in the same way as a revised and expanded edition. I don't have a problem with that, but there needs to be a consistent application of the rule.

I'm still on the fence about extracts being linked to anything (unless they've been published separately as independent works), but I do agree with you about the consistency.

In the end this is all just a data handling question, so I'm not really opposed to treating versions as separate works, I just think keeping them under one entry is a better option. At least at the moment.

Here we are again on the topic of not seeing works on the authors page

I know... we need it, bad!

I just think keeping them under one entry is a better option. At least at the moment.

These matters can be fine tuned at a later stage. I'm just amazed at the growth of the Work credits. It must be all those short stories that you keep adding.

Here we are again on the topic of not seeing works on the authors page

Yep, it is a pain in the backside as it takes a lot of work finding out exactly what Work credits are yet to be completed.

I am far from an authority on Dean Koontz as I have never read one of his books. BadMoon if you feel that a change is required to any of his Work credits, then you have my blessing. From memory I created a Work credit for everything that is listed on his Wiki bibliography.

I think we should create a general rule, doesn't matter if the changes are substantial or not, otherwise everyone can do whatever he thinks better for his case, based only on his opinion (and thus by his nature questionable). I submitted the revised version of "The Stand" (https://www.bookogs.com/book/451007-lombra-dello-scorpione) using the original Works and adding the date of revising (I couldn't find a better way to underline this, maybe I can highlight it also on Notes).
In my opinion, there should be added a specific field (ex. original vs YYYY revised version) or should be provided something like it has been done for ANV but only for title field. In addition the fact that there are one or more version has to be underlined in Works, so that any user is aware of that and can properly choose the book!

maybe I can highlight it also on Notes

I think that would be helpful.

This reminds me of the old discussion about expanding the format field, adding a description field/section similar to Discogs (or something like that) to allow the addition of some important identifiers.

https://www.bookogs.com/forum/104162-format-description-field

I am not sure if we have discussed this or I have just thought about it at some stage.

Should a children's book that is a retelling/rewriting of a book be credited to the Work of the original author, or should it be treated as something totally separate? There are lots of examples, such as Tom Sawyer, Peter Pan, Oliver Twist, etc.

I'm not sure, tbh. So far I've just followed the books: if the original author is presented as the author, then I'll link it to the original work. On the other hand if the original author is not mentioned, and the reteller has been presented as the author, then I've created a separate work.

Things are not that simple though... Take for example this:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/68676-disneys-james-the-giant-peach

It's a picture book adaptation of the Disney film that is based on the Roald Dahl story. Roald Dahl is credited, but I've been hesitant to link it to the Dahl's work.

I think the same way, it depends on the credits on the actual item.

On the giant peach, I would give Kirkpatrick a "Text by" credit and Dahl a "Based on the Story by" (or "Based on an Idea by"), which is the closest to the publishing infos, in addition to the cover, crediting Dahl. Kirkpatrick and Smith (the illustrator) as authors by Bookogs definition.

BadMoon, I'm not how this would solve the Work credit situation using the example mirva has provided (which is the exact type of book I'm referring to). In this example, Kirkpatrick and Smith had no involvement with the original book by Roald Dahl. To my mind, it would be somewhat misleading to use the existing Work credit for James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl in this situation.

The three options would be to:

• credit just the original Work
• credit the original Work and generate a new Work credit for the retold item
• don't credit the original Work at all, and generate a new credit for the retold item

You're right, I've missed to define my point of view.
In the case of the giant peach, the credit page state,the text is by Kirkpatrick, based on the movie which is an adaption of the Dahl book. This means (to me) Dahl's book should not be the Work on this item. I'll vote for new Work (the Dahl version could be mentioned /linked in the Notes):

I know there are other cases, which are revised versions of an original source text (maybe to make it suitable for younger audiances or to update language / phrases or whatever) which deserve an original Work credit.

Thanks BadMoon. I realise I haven't declared my position.

I don't think these type of books belong with the original Work credit as they quite often bear superficial resemblance to the original work. I would simply use a link in the Notes of the retold/rewritten Work credit to the original Work credit as acknowledgement of its origins. I would select option three.

I have just encountered a book that has three articles out of the four printed in both German and English: https://www.bookogs.com/book/469551-dark-days

The fourth article from what I gather is only printed in English. This presents a problem with the Work credits. Should the German titles be the Work credit or the English? I can't find any publication history for the articles prior to this book. The four contributors are Swiss, so you would assume German is the original language.

The OS created a Work credit for both the German and English titles, which completely negates the reason for the Work credit. I deleted the three English Work credits in preference to the German ones, but as this is a new situation to me I'm not totally certain that I have done the right thing.

Thanks everyone. I have created a new work for "Disney's James & the Giant Peach" as presented on the book, and to differentiate it from the Dahl work.

Another question is: should both Kirkpatrick and Smith be credited as 'authors' of the work, or only Kirkpatrick?

I'm personally a bit torn about creating a new work for every single adaptation, especially since we're currently linking excerpts and abridgments to the original work. I think there should be some logic to it.

mirva my raising this matter was never about that particular book (it couldn't have been as I didn't know it existed until your post), but was about these type of books in general.

In fact the catalyst was a group of Ladybird children's books that are based on classics such as Oliver Twist, The Last of the Mohicans, Tom Sawyer etc., that only run to about 50 pages, and each one has a credit for the role of Retold/Rewritten by.

I just wonder if these type of books rightly belong with the original Work credit or should be treated differently. I can see an argument for including them on the original Work credit as a convenient way of collecting them in one place even though they bear little resemblance to the original. I'm easy.

According to Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/James-Giant-Peach-Disneys/dp/0140382976 Lane Smith is the illustrator and Karey Kirkpatrick is the author. But it all depends on your definition of author:)

The Ladybird books do have the real Authors credited, then as you have noticed they are retold/written by someone else. I did use the ''created by'' to start with but I thought that might be wrong as they are not credited as such on the book.
My opinion is they are not the same books as the originals so I think they should have a separate work. They will still come up on the author's page, which means they won't be missed by people searching, plus as I understand it the future will bring ''works'' to the author's pages, rather than the list of books we have now. When that happens several works say like Oliver Twist would be next to Oliver Twist (2) making it a simple browse for people looking for certain books.

my raising this matter was never about that particular book

I'm sorry if I made the discussion to deviate from the actual, much larger topic, that particular book has been just bothering me for quite a bit.

I also have some other adaptations - some rather complex cases - but I will maybe bring those up a little later. Based on this discussion I also have to revise some of my books as I no longer think they should be linked to the original work.

My opinion is they are not the same books as the originals so I think they should have a separate work.

In general I tend to agree with this. If the work has been completely rewritten, and is only similar to the original plot-wise, it probably should be a separate work. The work is more than just the plot/idea.

But it all depends on your definition of author

Well, they are both equally presented on the cover, and title page, and after all, it's a picture book. The illustrator's contribution is equal to the writer's contribution. But in the past I've only credited the writer as the author, I was just wondering whether the illustrator should be credited as well.

But it all depends on your definition of author:)

That was an ironic reference to another Forum discussion we are involved with, hence the smiley face at the end of the sentence. But in all seriousness I think an illustrator shouldn't be credited as the author of a book.

This Work credit business is a complex matter.

I just completed Agatha Christie's Work credits and on occasions she rewrote stories completely but used the same title, expanded earlier short stories into novellas using the same title, and occasionally swapped the main characters completely. At some stage you have to question whether you are dealing with the original Work or something completely different.

I am divided in my opinion on the subject as I can see the benefit of collecting these variations under the original, but at the same time I wonder if that is doing a disservice to the original work.

But in the past I've only credited the writer as the author, I was just wondering whether the illustrator should be credited as well.

Depends on whether you believe these three versions of Alice in Wonderland are different Works.
Illustrated by John Tenniel:
https://www.amazon.com/Alices-Adventures-Wonderland-Wisehouse-Classics-ebook/dp/B01BM4XKSQ/

Illustrated by Arthur Rackham:
https://www.amazon.com/Alices-Adventures-Wonderland-Illustrated-Rackham/dp/1420952528/

Illustrated by Anna Bond:
https://www.amazon.com/Alices-Adventures-Wonderland-Lewis-Carroll/dp/0147515874/

Personally, I think they are all the same work.

Depends on whether you believe these three versions of Alice in Wonderland are different Works.

I'm not sure if they are comparable, as Alice in Wonderland is usually not classified as a picture book. Something like Where the Wild Things Are or The Cat in the Hat would more like it. In those cases the writer and the illustrator are the same person, but that's not always the case.

For example Goodnight Moon is written and illustrated by two different people: Margaret Wise Brown and Clement Hurd. As on picture books the illustrations are an integral part of the book, they are never published without them.

But in the end I'm ok either way - it's not a big deal.

@SextonBlake: on Dark Days, the fourth article is the only one which is not listed in both languages on the table of contents. The other three are listed in both, German and English, each with their own page reference.
I've already edited the chapter section on the item.

Thanks BadMoon. That still leaves the question about which language gets the Work credit title. Could be a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken, with the egg inside! ;)

As the three writers are from Switzerland (and this is where the exhibition took place) I would guess German was the original language, but do we really need two work credits (one original, one translated)?

The egg came first, reptiles came before Chickens. :)

The egg came first, reptiles came before Chickens.

I've heard of the origin of the birds of the reptile family before, but now I realise: this could be be the reason why crocodile tastes like poultry (or vice versa).

Sorry for going off-topic.

I will take your word about what crocodile tastes like.

I would describe it as gelatinous pork. It couldn't have been appetising as I only tried it once.

I have set up the Work credit for Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, and I'm not sure I have done the right thing.

It was originally published with the pre-reform title of Война и миръ, which in post-reform Russian is Война и мир. I have opted for the latter title as it seems easier to find, however if anyone thinks the Work credit should strictly be Война и миръ, then I will make the necessary edits.

SextonBlake, yes, every single Russian book published before 1918-1920s is of pre-preform spelling. I agree, let the work title be in the modern spelling, but the books are for submitter's consideration. I prefer to use it as written on the cover (search engine still survives subtle variations in those cases). In some complex cases I leave both variations as the title via the slash /.
As an interesting case in pre-reform spelling - Mayakovsky's https://www.bookogs.com/book/230216-voina-i-mir is different meaning than Dostoevsky's one. Mayakovsky's title is "Война и мiръ" vs. Dostoevsky's "Война и миръ". "Мiръ" means "World", but "Миръ" means "Peace". With the modern spelling "Мир" for both it's hard to say what is what without context :)

Thanks phasics.

The submitted book title should always match exactly what is printed, so that was never an issue. I believe you submitted a copy that used the pre-reform title, so I used the post-reform title as the Work Credit and added the pre-reform title as a name variation.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.