This is the profile for the Credit Anonymous:

"Anonymous works are works, such as art or literature, that have an undisclosed, or unknown creator or author. In the case of very old works, the author's name may simply be lost over the course of history and time."

I noticed that the Credit Unknown has recently been used for Works.

In my opinion, Unknown is exactly the same as Anonymous and should be marked as a duplicate. If it is really necessary then users can add an NV to Anonymous.

I added those to Unknown because that's the credit that is used on the book. I've used Anonymous if that has been the credit. If I had to choose between the two, I would go for Unknown, I find it easier to spell and more 'familiar', if that makes sense. But that's just me. :-)

FYI, we also have "Unknown Author" which is actually the earliest entry:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19466-unknown-author

I would actually prefer if we had a placeholder entry for these, just like Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/artist/355-Unknown-Artist

The entry is going to be massive. Having an open entry with tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of credits is just going to slow the database down. No one is going to use the entry itself, and we will have to clean up duplicates constantly (based on experience from Discogs before we could mark profiles invalid).

That's a good point you have made. I think a placeholder entry would be far better.

I will contact the staff about this.

I have messaged the staff.

As for the name of it, I really don't care if it is Anonymous or Unknown, as long as everything ends up in the one location. It seems a bit silly to have three database entries for what is essentially the same thing.

I just received word from the staff that they agree the suggestion of a Discogs type placeholder entry is a good idea and they will be pass this on to the developers.

Great news. :-)

The other thing slightly related are 'Traditional English Tale' type of credits. Should these be just 'dumped' under the Anonymous/Unknown entry, or should we create credits for these? I've avoided entering any of them because I'm not sure what to do with them.

I know Discogs has entries for 'Traditional' and 'Folk', but they are quite big, and their usefulness is debatable. There was a suggestion a long time ago to split them by country/area (i.e. Traditional: English, Traditional: Irish, or something like that) in which case they could be more useful if someone is looking for traditional tales from a specific country/area/people.

I can see these being subject material as well, but the Works need an author too. Would there be any problems with sorting them like that?

I have wondered about that as I have encountered a few poems that are described as Traditional Scots, Traditional English, etc.

Maybe if we use an About/Subject type credit so each of these has its own database. Then just credit the author as "Discogs type placeholder entry".

I didn't consider the Work credit when I formulated that reply. Let me think about it!

Sorry mirva, I forgot to give you an answer, but I did give it some thought.

The only solution I can think of is having a set of "Traditional XXX" Credits and treating them both as an About/Subject and as an Author.

Nothing else springs to mind.

I'm in no hurry. :-)

The only solution I can think of is having a set of "Traditional XXX" Credits and treating them both as an About/Subject and as an Author.

Yeah, that was one of my options too. At least that way the stories and the books are grouped up somewhere, it will make spotting duplicates and such a bit easier.

I assume the credits should be formatted in a similar way than has been already suggested in the Native Americans thread, i.e. "Traditional: Irish", "Traditional: Swedish", etc.?

Yes, I think that format would work well.

that seems like a good idea!

I'm in no hurry. :-)

I see you have created the first one, so that was quick 👏

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.