I've created the works for the two Eddas:
https://www.bookogs.com/work/510135-poetic-edda
https://www.bookogs.com/work/510136-prose-edda

I've used the modern, common English names as Work titles, at least for the time being.

My reasoning for it was that since Poetic Edda was originally unnamed, and Prose Edda was originally just called Edda, using the original titles (Untitled and Edda) might lead to confusion, and Poetic Edda being difficult to locate in the database. I thought this would be the most user-friendly solution, as at least in many languages a similar distinction is made.

But as this is just my opinion, I would like to hear others' thoughts about the issue.

Thanks for the info. Out of interest would people interested in this normally search using 'Edda' first? ie. have Edda: Poetic / Edda: Prose instead or something similar. Or does that just look horrible and/or not in keeping with the subject?

I just wonder how easy it will be to locate those Work credits in future.

It might be easier if they were listed as Edda (Poetic) and Edda (Prose). To my mind Edda is the important search item.

I have been using bracketed information to differentiate Ray Bradbury's collections and short stories, because it is much easier when selecting items from the menu to have the Work credits presented this way. Variation numbers are just confusing.

Hi folks, I think using Edda (Brackets) or Edda- Prose is a better way to go here. They will be a lot easier to find using one of those methods.

As an Icelander Eddu Kvæði and Snorra Edda gets a nationalistic +1 from me. Though the former is known under quite a few different names (Sæmundar Edda, Ljóða Edda etc).

Realistically the english names are probably more practical. With they way our dropdown search currently works (the search has to start with the first word) I think Supernaut1970s suggestion

Hopefully we can improve the inline search functionality soon.

I have to admit that 'rearranging' actual titles (which they are, despite them not being original names) feels a little off-putting, but on the other hand I also feel like there's no solution for this which would please everyone, and that would make submitting completely problem-free.

It seems that currently the majority supports the (Brackets), have I understood that correctly?

Variation numbers are just confusing.

Agreed. We should come up with an alternative system.

mirva you have quoted me out of context. My comment that "Variation numbers are just confusing" was purely in relation to the Ray Bradbury collections and short stories that have the same title. I found that using a bracketed variation number in this situation made it very difficult to judge which Work I was dealing with when presented with a list of options in the drop down menu. In most cases the image for the collection and short story are the same. The only solution I could think of was to add a descriptor in brackets. In retrospect, I might use this system with a couple of other authors that I have generated Work credits for that also have collections and short stories with the same title.

In the main, I support the system of bracketed variation numbers as it least gives me some idea as to which Work I need to select when presented with a list of Work credits with the same name.

If the drop down menu listed the Work credit title along with the author, then this could almost eliminate the need for using bracketed numbers. The only exception I can think of is when an author has written multiple works with the same title.

I agree rearranging titles is not optimal, but at the same time this information needs to be accessible. In a perfect world users would check the author page to find out which Work credits have been generated and then use them in their submission accordingly, or if they don't exist then generate them.

As for Edda I would add the descriptor in brackets, but westpier suggested Edda: XXXX, Supernaut1970 had an each way bet, and kalli agreed with Supernaut1970. I leave it in your capable hands.

My apologies, I wasn't aware your comment applied only to the Ray Bradbury case. Others have been using a similar system, me included after the discussion in the forum.

I found that using a bracketed variation number in this situation made it very difficult to judge which Work I was dealing with when presented with a list of options in the drop down menu.

That is the problem, even in other situations. To avoid having to go through every single work with the same name, you have to basically know which work is which number as the system gives no other clues than a tiny image that is in most cases illegible - that is if there is an image.

If the drop down menu listed the Work credit title along with the author, then this could almost eliminate the need for using bracketed numbers.

The Title field already does this - maybe the same system could be implemented to the Work field?

TBH, it doesn't take much space to include publishing year, and if we eventually want to sort out Works (to novels, short stories, poems, etc.), that information doesn't take much space either.

As for Edda I would add the descriptor in brackets, but westpier suggested Edda: XXXX, Supernaut1970 had an each way bet, and kalli agreed with Supernaut1970. I leave it in your capable hands.

Well, the brackets have the most support, so unless someone comes up with a good reason not to use them, I will go with them. I will wait for a bit though before doing the edits.

I have no preference myself as I think they are all abominations. :P

I have no preference myself as I think they are all abominations.

I gather that you are not overly impressed by the solutions offered😯

I must admit I knew nothing about these two works and my advice was based totally on search criteria.

Now that I know a bit about them, I would keep the titles as you have listed them because that is the way they are generally known (although possibly not in Nordic countries).

I gather that you are not overly impressed by the solutions offered

Haha, I'm not. But I could live with them. ;-)

that is the way they are generally known (although possibly not in Nordic countries).

The Nordics have their equivalents as well. kalli already presented the Icelandic ones which are probably the most relevant out of the Nordic ones. They are also later, made up names.

The only difference probably is that the Prose Edda is better known in the Nordic Countries either as "Snorri's Edda", and/or "The Younger Edda" (using the English names, no reason to start listing all the local variations). I don't remember seeing anything like "Prosa-Eddan" used at least in Swedish.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.