Which image should be used on the works main details page?

I've used an image of the first edition, or whatever publication the work was first published in.

Agree with mirva. Or at least an image of the earliest edition we could find, e.g. printed book released in like 1450s, but the earliest release we could find is from like 1550s https://www.bookogs.com/work/402455-de-re-aedificatoria :-)

Has the question been asked, what to do about different books with the same name?

I agree the answers given.

As for different books with the same name, I have followed the usual naming convention of adding a variant number in brackets.

I propose to add a line "Cycle" to the Work page, because some works are part of author cycles. For example, "Brave to Be a King" by Poul Anderson is a part of "The Time Patrol" cycle etc. It's not Series and may be used for miscellany and antology. Sorry for my English:)
By the way what about poetry? Should I indicate every verse in Work like here https://www.bookogs.com/book/281016-vrazhii-pitomets

Cycle is a word mostly used in the Science Fiction and Fantasy genres but for the purposes of Bookogs I think Series is fine. Ursula K. Le Guin's Hanish Cycle is another example which is treated as a Series on this site.

It would be correct to add a Works credit for each of the poems listed in your book. The simplest way to do this is create the first Works via the book submission and then use the 'Add One Like This' feature located in the Works credit to keep adding the rest. That way most of the details are pre-filled and it saves a lot of time. If you just list them as Works in the book submission, then someone has to manually add details like the author and genres.

please allow Dates BC

https://www.bookogs.com/work/422685-antigone-sophocles-play

I am adding de Maupassant's short stories, and I'm not sure whether I should add one or two entries for Le Horla. I've added only one version for now, but as the "versions" are quite different from each other, I was wondering if I should add two versions?

How about Le Horla (1886 Shorter Version) and Le Horla (1887 Longer Version)?

I'm ok with that. I'll create the two entries, and see what happens.

Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (known in English as Das Kapital, or as Capital. Critique of Political Economy) by Karl Marx was published in three volumes over a span of 27 years. I have created an individual Work credit for each volume:

Das Kapital. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals (1867)
https://www.bookogs.com/work/427004-das-kapital-zweiter-band-buch-ii-der-cirkulationsprocess-des-kapitals (1885)
Das Kapital. Dritter Band. Buch III: Der Gesammtprocess der kapitalistischen Produktion (1894)

Not sure if I have done the right thing, but I couldn't think of an alternative.

Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (known in English as Das Kapital, or as Capital. Critique of Political Economy) by Karl Marx was published in three volumes over a span of 27 years. I have created an individual Work credit for each volume:

Das Kapital. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals (1867)
https://www.bookogs.com/work/427004-das-kapital-zweiter-band-buch-ii-der-cirkulationsprocess-des-kapitals (1885)
Das Kapital. Dritter Band. Buch III: Der Gesammtprocess der kapitalistischen Produktion (1894)

Not sure if I have done the right thing, but I couldn't think of an alternative.

Why we can't be provided with a Preview function on this site is beyond me.

Just a fair warning: I'm about to slap Calvino's Italian Folktales into the database which contains 200 works. It's going to take me a while to update them, so bear with me and don't get too frustrated by the amount of edits. :/

The fact that you have added him as the author on every Works credit is sufficient for me. That is a big task. Great effort!

Hah, I feel a little guilty every time. I'd like to add more, but at this point I'm happy with just adding the author considering the amount of work I have ahead. I would have never guessed liking short fiction would become such a chore.

I have been thinking about this for a while, but are introductions and such valid works? Many known authors have written introductions for anthologies and other authors' novels.

Also, if they are valid, how should they be named? Obviously titling them all as "Introduction" is not going to work.

What about fairy tales or folk tales that are not credited to anyone? Should they each have their own work, or should there be just one work entry for each story? Or should we have works for them at all?

Personally, I would create a Work credit for the fairy tale or folk tale in question so at least they are collected in the one place.

As for introductions, I would not create a Work credit for them but no doubt someone has a different opinion.

I agree in not creating a work for introduction. The credit should be enough.
By the way: if an introduction (or afterword) is by the author of the book, do you give it a credit, as it is possibly not included in every edition of the work?

I like the idea of the fairytale works but who will be credited as author, as it's required at the works form?

By the way: if an introduction (or afterword) is by the author of the book, do you give it a credit, as it is possibly not included in every edition of the work?

I do so for this reason.

When it comes to introductions (and prefaces and prologues and...), the only thing is that there are some introductions that have been published separately, and there are also some collections, like "Prefaces and Prologues to Famous Books", "The Book of Prefaces", etc. I haven't added any of them, but was just curious to hear people's thoughts.

I like the idea of the fairytale works but who will be credited as author, as it's required at the works form?

I was thinking 'Anonymous':
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/25328-anonymous

This applies only of course for fairy/folk tales that are not credited to anyone. There are tons of them, and having like 1000 "Sleeping Beauty" Works with Anonymous as the author just seemed a bit excessive.

If there's an author, then that's a work of its own, and should not be lumped with the others.

The only thing is how to name these... I mean there are already three variations of Rapunzel in the database, two of Little Red Riding Hood. Creating Rapunzel (4) and Little Red Riding Hood (3) for the anonymous works would be a bit odd. It would be nice if they were named consistently. Any ideas?

if an introduction (or afterword) is by the author of the book, do you give it a credit, as it is possibly not included in every edition of the work?

I have added the credit when I've realized to check the introduction. :-)

1000 "Sleeping Beauty" Works

A measure of my ignorance as I thought there was just the one!

I wish there was only one... But I might be alone with these problems. :P

Anyhow, continuing my own thoughts how to name them, how about something like:
Rapunzel (Fairy/Folk Tale)
Rapunzel (Anonymous)
Rapunzel (Generic)

I will go with whatever you think is the best way of differentiating the variants.

How about
Rapunzel (Traditional)

I was thinking about that too, but then, most of the tales are 'traditional' - whether they have a credited author or not. I thought that might confuse people.

But it's the same problem with 'Fairy/Folk Tale', it makes it seem like it's an entry for all of them, not just the anonymous ones.

But I'm not sure about the other options either. None of them is perfect, so might just have to pick one somehow... (I have been obviously thinking about this too much, and can't make up my mind.)

Sometimes, a word having different meanings can be a problem.
As we have a (one meaning) word in German to describe the fairy tale/traditional issue, I've taken the online translators to the duty, which led me to
Rapunzel (Lore)
Besides that, I think "Generic" comes closest.

Generic is the best description.

Then Generic it is. Thanks. :-)

How should you deal with fix-up novels? I just added the four novels in Cities in Flight as Works. The third novel, "Earthman, Come Home," was derived from four earlier stories in the science fiction magazines:
Okie (Astounding Science Fiction, April 1950)
Bindlestiff (Astounding Science Fiction, December 1950)
Sargasso of Lost Cities (Two Complete Science-Adventure Books, Spring 1953)
Earthman, Come Home (Astounding Science Fiction, November 1953)

Sargasso of Lost Cities is included in this magazine:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/72269-two-complete-science-adventure-books-no-8-spring-1953

Should the stories incorporated into the fix-up novels be included as Works, so the fix-up novels and the component works are connected?

I would treat "Earthman, Come Home" as a Work credit, and the four stories as individual Work credits. I would mention in the Notes of the "Earthman, Come Home" Work credit that it is a fix-up of the four earlier short stories. It would be helpful to provide a link to each of the four individual Work credits using HTML.

I think this approach is consistent with the community's decision to treat a collected title as an individual Work credit and the short stories contained within as separate Work credits.

A bit like Skeleton Crew.

When I responded to this thread I was rushing to do something else.

On reflection, if the four stories are published in their entirety in the fix-up title (a collected work by just another name), then I can't see any reason why you couldn't credit the fix-up name as well as the four short stories as Work credits in the same fix-up submission. The only barrier would be if the short story names are not listed in the fix-up title, as it could be a bit confusing.

The problem, of course, is that in a fix-up novel, the component stories are frequently amended to make the novel read as a continuous narrative, which was done with Earthman, Come Home.

Also, where do you go to see a list of works by an author?

I thought that might be the case. It is similar to The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury.

Therefore, you won't be able to add the four individual short story Work credits to your fix-up submission. It would be helpful to detail the history of the fix-up in the Notes section. My previous suggestion about creating four individual Work credits for the stories and then linking these with HTML in the Notes of the fix-up Work credit is probably the best solution. I know it does seem a bit clunky.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to view a list of the Works by an author at present. This facility has been requested in several Forum threads, and hopefully it might eventuate soon. I know it would make my life easier.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to view a list of the Works by an author at present.

So what exactly is the point of the feature?

It is a feature in development and was only introduced a couple of months ago. Since then, users have been furiously working to build up the database. I would be inclined to think that once there are sufficient numbers of Works in the system, the staff will endeavour to switch on a page where an author's works can be viewed.

However, I am not at the pointy end, so that is purely supposition on my part. The staff might like to comment further on this matter.

That's right, we're looking at adding filtering to author pages and the like, so you can narrow down your view to works, a particular language, genre, year, etc.
As SextonBlake says, it's a work in progress. Right now the Works feature is used primarily to group together all unique versions/printing of an author's work. Hopefully we can get this going soon - stay tuned!

How do you handle anthologies? Should an anthology be treated as a Work? If so, they do not have an author; they have an editor. There is no provision in the Work form for an editor.

All collections are valid works. There was a little bit heated discussion about it (I personally stopped debating about it when the opposing debater resorted to personal insults):
https://www.bookogs.com/forum/426739-is-the-title-of-a-collected-work-considered-a-works-credit

falsepriest and p.adkins both made some good points in that thread.

Yes, but there is no provision for an editor. How is that handled, when a Work requires an author, but anthologies have no single author? Is the editor treated as an author when that is a different role entirely, or does an anthology have 20 authors?

I've personally set the editor as the author. In some thread someone made a good point that an 'author' can be understood as a creator of a work / book, so an author can be something else than a writer.

That's interesting because I have avoided adding the editor to anthology Work credits where the content is by other authors. However, I agree that if we use that definition of an author, then in this case the editor can be regarded as the author of the anthology.

It does get complex sometimes.

Is the editor treated as an author when that is a different role entirely, or does an anthology have 20 authors

I would create the anthology Work credit with just the editor as the author, and list the individual Work credits contained within, in your actual book submission.

Wouldn't it be better to modify the form to allow for selection of either an author or an editor, rather than do violence to the English language by pretending editors are authors?

rather than do violence to the English language by pretending editors are authors?

I'm sorry but I got the impression that the definition of "author" is not the same as "writer". Multiple dictionaries give a secondary definition of "one that originates or creates something" - wouldn't this cover others than writers as a creator of a work, including editors?

I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I've understood it wrong. Could someone clarify/elaborate?

I have nothing against adding more roles to the Work credit section (maybe illustrators too - they are often also presented as authors), just want to understand. :-)

mirva your understanding of the definition of author is totally correct. However, I would guess a large proportion of native English speakers would not know the correct meaning.

I can understand the point ThomasP64 is trying to make, because most users would see author and conclude that it means the writer and not the creator of the idea. I did and I should know better.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/author
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2018
a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/author
1 : the writer of a literary work (such as a book)

The usual meaning of author is writer. As seen above, the Random House dictionary distinguishes writers/authors from editors.

Editor
a person who edits, or selects and revises, material for publications, films, etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/editor?s=t
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2018

These are different roles.

Oxford Dictionary:
Noun
1 A writer of a book, article, or document.
1.1 Someone who writes books as a profession.
1.2 The writings produced by a particular author.
1.3 An originator of a plan or idea.

Verb
1 Be the author of (a book or piece of writing)
1.1 Be the originator of.

Cambridge Dictionary:
Noun
the writer of a book, article, etc.
a person who begins or creates something

Verb
to write a book, article, etc.
to create something or formally suggest it

The editor of an anthology has the role of conceiving of a theme or angle for the book, in addition to selecting appropriate works, arranging the order, and possibly editing the stories. On that basis, they are the originator and creator of the anthology, and therefore by definition the author.

So who was the author of this book?
https://www.bookogs.com/book/466289-the-dark-angel

I was at least talking only about anthologies, not all collections.

Personally, if I was creating a collective Work credit for The Dark Angel then I would add George A. Vanderburgh as the author. This is quite separate from the short story of the same name by Seabury Quinn. Seabury Quinn did not compile the anthology and therefore he is not the author of it. Does that make sense?

I should add that my comment is predicated on the assumption that George A. Vanderburgh was the creator of the anthology. The role of editor doesn't automatically make you the creator or the originator of an anthology. The role of editor could be simply to revise material prior to publication. I notice that his name is not credited on the cover.

No. It would not make sense to the vast majority of people to say the sole author of the material in a book is not the author of the book. Similarly, if you are going to equate authors and editors, you need to be very clear that you are going to be your own lexicographer, so people know what you are talking about.

Dashiell Hammett wrote all the Continental Op stories, so he is considered to be the author of The Big Book of The Continental Op.
https://www.bookogs.com/book/348626-the-big-book-of-the-continental-op

The Library of Congress is very clear Hammett is the author.

In the same way, Seabury Quinn is the author of the collection I cited earlier.

I was at least talking only about anthologies, not all collections.
I saw where SextonBlake's argument was potentially leading. Guess what? I was right.

I should add that my comment is predicated on the assumption that George A. Vanderburgh was the creator of the anthology. The role of editor doesn't automatically make you the creator or the originator of an anthology.

Seabury Quinn did not create or originate this anthology. He was dead.
The Library of Congress still considers him the author.
https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=seabury+quinn+dark+angel&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=25

Seabury Quinn did not compile the anthology and therefore he is not the author of it.

That's true - and I have to admit that I would find it slightly odd to see the collection listed on the Works list of Seabury Quinn. If it's not his work, then how could he be credited as the author?

But as a compromise we could also consider listing both Quinn and Vanderburgh. In that case it would be of course very beneficial to have both roles available on the Works page.

I notice in the two examples you have cited (both anthologies submitted by you), that you have correctly listed the individual short stories as Work credits, but you have not generated a Work credit for the actual anthology.

This matter was discussed at some length and the consensus was that the individual items in a collection (anthology) are listed as Work credits, and the collected title (anthology title) is a separate Work credit: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/426739-is-the-title-of-a-collected-work-considered-a-works-credit

In both of those examples, the collected (anthology) Work credit author is neither Seabury Quinn or Dashiell Hammett respectively, but the editors who compiled the anthology.

Just for the record, I didn't invent the English language or write those definitions for the Oxford Dictionary or Cambridge Dictionary, unfortunately many English words have nuanced meanings. That is just a fact.

to say the sole author of the material in a book is not the author of the book

No one is suggesting that Seabury Quinn or Dashiell Hammett weren't the authors of the individual stories contained within each of those anthologies (which should be attributed as individual Work credits to Seabury Quinn or Dashiell Hammett respectively). But when it comes to the anthology title Work credit, the role of author is attributed to the editor.

I trust this makes sense.

In both of those examples, the collected (anthology) Work credit author is neither Seabury Quinn or Dashiell Hammett respectively, but the editors who compiled the anthology.

I absolutely do not agree with that. You are basically saying the Library of Congress (and probably every other library) does it wrong.

What about collections with no credited editor?
https://www.bookogs.com/book/65281-jumbee-and-other-uncanny-tales
https://www.bookogs.com/book/65275-west-india-lights
Henry S. Whitehead was dead when these came out, but there is no credited editor.
Do we credit Anonymous as the author? Surely not.

On Bookogs a collected book title is credited with a Work credit, in addition to the individual items contained within it.

You have failed to do this with "The Dark Angel", "The Big Book of The Continental Op", "Jumbee And Other Uncanny Tales", and "West India Lights". You have correctly listed the stories contained within the collections, but you have not generated a Work credit for the collected title.

I will use The Big Book of Continental OP as an example. The Works section of your submission should look like this:

The Big Book of Continental OP
Arson Plus
Crooked Souls
Slippery Fingers
It
Bodies Piled Up... etc.

Note that "The Big Book of Continental OP" is a Work credit. In the Work credit for "The Big Book of Continental OP" the author(s) would be Richard Layman and Julie M. Rivett, both of whom were responsible for putting this book together, not Dashiell Hammett who only wrote the stories contained within it.

The author of "The Dark Angel" collected title Work credit is George A. Vanderburgh. The person responsible for putting together "Jumbee And Other Uncanny Tales", and "West India Lights" is unknown, so the author field in the respective Work credits would be left blank.

I have added a Work credit for the collected title to your submission The Big Book of The Continental Op, and I have completed this Work credit.

Hopefully, this will help you understand the Work credit system.

Go ahead and do what you want. I'm done here.

You are basically saying the Library of Congress (and probably every other library) does it wrong.

Different doesn't necessarily mean wrong, these are just database practices. LoC doesn't completely ignore the editor either.

If we are to get a Works view for every author eventually, I don't think that collections like this belong there alongside works that the person has actually authored.

We could always try to find some kind of compromise for this, though at this point our options are quite limited.

I don't think that collections like this belong there alongside works that the person has actually authored.

Then I have a fundamental disagreement with how this site operates. As I said, I'm done.

these are just database practices.

but they are wrong "database practices". No matter how you turn it. What you are doing is the "when your only tool is a hammer, every object resembles a nail" concept of database practices.

We could always try to find some kind of compromise for this, though at this point our options are quite limited.

Why are they limited ? Simply stop inventing things. Use the features you have for the things they were designed for. It is always a good idea to adapt the database to the objects it needs to store (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology for what an anthology is and what it is not). Not to do it the other way around.

Then I have a fundamental disagreement with how this site operates.

Well, at least you have a fundamental disagreement with SextonBlake's opinion and my opinion (which are not the same either).

As far as I know, nothing of this is really set in stone, and even if something was decided, it doesn't mean things can't change. But whether you're willing to stay and actually have a constructive discussion about this and the options we have is your choice.

Our options are limited because of the current system, that's all I meant. The system only allows us to do certain things at this point. The system could be changed, and/or we could find another solution. Do you have a suggestion how the Work entries for anthologies, collections, and even omnibuses could be treated better?

Doing things differently from other databases doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong", it's just different. While LoC is an authority, it's not "wrong" to do things differently from them - or are you suggesting it's absolutely the best practice to include the author and editor in the title field? We can actually do better than that.

The system only allows us to do certain things at this point.

Then do not enter the things that cannot be correctly entered right now. Wait until the database provides the necessary features (where editors remain editors for example).

Do you have a suggestion how the Work entries for anthologies, collections, and even omnibuses could be treated better?

Imo the work entries are not suitable for this. They can only be used for pieces of writing that actually have an author, i.e. someone who writes short stories, novels, poems, non-fictional text and that provide actual content for a book. Without the work there would be no book. If you take away the stories of Dashiel Hammet from
https://www.bookogs.com/book/348626-the-big-book-of-the-continental-op
what is left of the work that the-big-book-of-the-continental-op is supposed to represent ?

How about a "collection" feature ? A collection contains works. A collection would have an (optional) editor. If there is no editor, the author of the works contained in the collection would replace the editor. This would essentially be the same construction as what has been hand coded for
https://www.bookogs.com/work/406531-skeleton-crew
It would automatically collect all the books that contain all the works mentioned in the collection. And nobody would be required to edit all existing books to arbitrarily add the "work" that represents the collection.

Well, at least you have a fundamental disagreement with SextonBlake's opinion and my opinion (which are not the same either).

That's an interesting comment, because I thought we were on the same page about this subject. How does your understanding of the collective Work credit differ from mine? Maybe I have got it wrong.

Personally, I think we have been a provided with a fairly basic set of tools to deal with a very complex issue. However, I think it is much better to deal with this situation using the tools we have at present, instead of waiting for a development that might never happen. I know I have been waiting two years for ISBNs to be searchable, and a much simpler system for entering series and pseudonyms. You either sit on your hands, or make the best of what you have got.

How about a "collection" feature

I agree that would be a superior to what we have at present, but again it is up to the site developers to implement these type of changes.

I have also been waiting two years for the ability to edit comments in the Forum. That hasn't happened either!

That's an interesting comment, because I thought we were on the same page about this subject. How does your understanding of the collective Work credit differ from mine? Maybe I have got it wrong.

While we agree on some things, I would be open to a compromise to credit both the writer and editor as "authors" on single-writer collections, at least for the time being. While I still think that it would be odd to find these type of collections among a writer's work, maybe they can be sorted later to a separate section. Who knows.

You either sit on your hands, or make the best of what you have got.

That's very true, any of what we're discussing shouldn't stop us from creating Works for these. Data can always be updated at a later date.

To be honest, I don't think we necessarily need a new feature to cover collections, just the current Work pages could use some improvements. But that's just my opinion. There just seems to be too much ambiguity between different types of publications, and how we perceive them seems to be awfully subjective.

But minds can be changed if the devs can come up with a better, alternative system. :)

To me, the person credited on the front cover is an author, unless a function is mentioned (illustrator, editor ...).
Usually, the credit page / publishing infos will define people's job. In this case, I credit them two times: author, because of the cover and actual function (text by, illustrations, collected by...) as credited.
On Works, as on the Dark Angel example by ThomasP64, I would not credit the editor as author, Well. after this discussion maybe in second place, behind the writer.
I know, this is kind of preferential treatment of "... would see author and conclude that it means the writer",

Other thoughts:
Who do you credit as author of a collection of different writers' storys (on Works) if no editor is mentioned?
Who should be credited if no writer and no editor is mentioned (as you can't add any infos to a work without an author)?

You had me worried there for awhile as I thought I had totally misunderstood the Work credits.

I wouldn't be adverse to adding the author/writer along with the editor as Author to the collected title Work credit, when it is a single author collection/anthology.

I wouldn't be adverse to adding the author/writer along with the editor as Author to the collected title Work credit, when it is a single author collection/anthology.

At last.

Who do you credit as author of a collection of different writers' storys (on Works) if no editor is mentioned?
Two possibilities.
1) Anonymous.
2) The original publisher.

For example (suppose these were multi-author collections, which they are not)
https://www.bookogs.com/book/65281-jumbee-and-other-uncanny-tales (1944; first edition)
https://www.bookogs.com/book/343912-jumbee-and-other-uncanny-tales (1974; first UK edition)

The Author, at least until an editor field is provided, could be Arkham House, publisher of the 1944 edition.

Who should be credited if no writer and no editor is mentioned (as you can't add any infos to a work without an author)?
Anonymous.

ThomasP64 I just noticed your comment in the History of the Work credit which I created for The Big of Continental Op: https://www.bookogs.com/work/469920-the-big-book-of-the-continental-op "In the name of sanity."

Is that supposed to funny or is it sarcasm? It certainly isn't a summary of the edit you conducted, and frankly I find it quite insulting like many of the other snide comments you have been making in this Forum discussion. I suggest that you keep in mind that it is a condition of this site to treat all users respectfully.

I see that "Works" have been added in my absence. Would it be alright to add a work for each poem in a compilation of poems?

Would it be alright to add a work for each poem in a compilation of poems?

Yes. Actually, you can add a work for the collection and the poems.

Thanks, I added some poems earlier.

I've now tried a new thing. I've added the first five books of the Hebrew Torah and I've chosen to use the Hebrew for the work title.

https://www.bookogs.com/work/474211-b-reshiyt
https://www.bookogs.com/work/474212-shimvot
https://www.bookogs.com/work/474213-vayiq-ra
https://www.bookogs.com/work/474214-b-mid-bar
https://www.bookogs.com/work/474215-d-bariym

Anyone see a problem with this before I add the rest?

And when I get to what is commonly known as The New Testament, those work titles will be in Greek as that is the original language for that section of the Christian Bible.

I can't confirm if your Hebrew is accurate, but creating Work credits in the language they were first "published" in is correct. Looks good.

I do know that user JT_X did quite a bit of work adding Work Credits for various bible formats, I don't see any Work Credits for the individual books of the bible (old or new) in amongst that users contributions: https://www.bookogs.com/users/jt_x?page=1 (5 pages in total).

That doesn't mean someone else has done it, although every day I keep an eye on the freshly generated Work credits and I can't recall seeing anything like that.

What is the use of works if some one keeps addind the native translation of the title of the work all time?

I thought that works was the original title from the author or was i wrong?

What is the point in to put the native title in the works page a since already in the title of the book.

The Work credit is created in the original language name and the purpose is to collect all editions of the one work. If the publication is in a language other than the original, then a name variation is added to the Work credit.

As you pointed out there is the Original Language Title field to add that information. If a submission has been correctly assembled, then someone viewing the submission can piece together the original language title along with the variant Works name.

Adding a name variation to a Work credit could provide the database with more information if the Work credits ever become searchable.

The usage of "original language" is going to be a little complicated when trying to apply to texts as ancient as the Tanakh/Old Testament, New Testament or any other Greek, Latin, French, English etc, 1800 years and older.
With the example of the Hebrew titles used for the first five books of the Hebrew Torah/Old Testament above those are not the original titles, original language arguably but not title. That form of alphabet was codified long after the earliest extant copies of those texts and all you have up there is the modern Hebrew spelling.
Imagining this trying to be applied to ancient Japanese and Chinese or Korean texts is the same. A claim for trying to apply original title will end up simply being a modern spelling in the current alphabet/writing form.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the intended use of "work" though and what the implications are? The only issue I see is if no one immediately adds a "name variant" in English/(Any modern language spelling) it won't be searchable by the majority of users. And even when it's been added as it stands now, when you type in Genesis and hit works none of the options that come up look like what you'd be looking for. In the case of Genesis the most reproduced "work" in human history one might wonder if some merit might be given to its "work" title coming up in it's most recognized form.

Either way the question is, if orginal title it is then do modern spelling equivalents in the closest equivalent language and alphabet trump the most used format in the works modern "published" history?

Why does people Always come to the extreme regarding the "ogs" sites?

The usage of "original language" is going to be a little complicated when trying to apply to texts as ancient as the Tanakh/Old Testament, New Testament or any other Greek, Latin, French, English etc, 1800 years and older.

I see no problem of the usage of that, just put it in the Original Language field
if you know what the language is called, otherwise put it as unknown until futher notice!

But now, back to basic concerning "Works"

What is the most common language used in the World to get people to
understand each other?
English, right!

So why not use the English title alone for the works field?

Example: Stephen King's "The Shinging" is the English and original title,
in Swedish it is called "Varsel".

i know it belong to the "works" "The Shining" cause i know the Swedish and English language.
But I have no idea what the title is in , let's say Finnish, German or Spanish?

if you go to the main page for "Varsel" and not knowing the translated title for
it you are not help in any way by looking at the works title since it is translated into "Varsel" with an*. So you have to click the "Works" page to know the original title. or scrool down futher on the page. A waste of time in my opinion.

So why do not use the original title from the Author. If it is in English, Finnish, German or so on, please use that as a standard title for the "works" and do not
translate it and add a*
The original title is often (or why not say always printed in the book, no matter what the language it is translated to.

If there are different release called "Varsel" (and they are) all should be gathered under the same "Works", "The Shining" but they should also be gathered under one specific page for the translated work. (on that page it
would be much easier to choose which edition you have).

All "Works" goes under the original title (without any translation*).
The different edition of a translated title should be gathered under another sort of works title. Translated Works is what comes to mind(not created yet, just saying)

Works "The Shining" 54 editions(the # is just example)= all editions added to Bookogs.
Translated Works "Varsel" 3 editions (also an example)= all editions of the translated work added to Bookogs.

There you have it, all editions under one common site "works" and all translated editions under another common site (translated works)

is this something that we could use or am i just selfish?

Thanx.

Why does people Always come to the extreme regarding the "ogs" sites?

Are you referring to me?
You have misread the direction of my meandering point then. I was actually trying to suggest something similiar to youself. I was showing the flaws in the argument of Hebrew being the proper title, not expressing a desire for it to be spelled in an even more innacessible form. My point is that that spelling is not original so why use it when it is not accurate or accessible. In the same vein Homer's Iliad's work title on here is in the original Homeric Greek of Ἰλιάς, how is that accesible, or beneficial. In my experience with the ogs sites the first place you search for an item is on the "master" page for that item, whether it be called "master release", "works" " film" etc, is irrelevant. If we're typing in Koine Greek titles or Modern Greek titles for the books of the New Testament then I think both are doing a diservice to the "work" page and it's use for the average user.

Is it The Bible, τὰ βιβλία or biblia?

We have a spot to place the original language already as I think (?) zamla_71 is trying to say, so maybe the title is best used as a place for the most representable title, in the same manner as Discogs does for Master Releases.

In my thinking this is only for works before the modern age of publishing, in those cases where we have actual published works then it does make a stronger case for original title as that is something that is verifiable and more likely to be used to search for the work.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.