I have merged all of these credits that used a pen name relationship. Where the pen name is the only credited form then I made it the primary title of the credit. I then added the real name as an alias and elaborated on this in Notes.
2 Likes
OK, thx. I hope this “alias/alternate name” presentation will be updated here on BB the way it works on MusicBrainz (if you are not familiar we have an “credited as” field so any kind of different spellings or scipts can be presented as they appear in the context), actually I’m a bit puzzled why it wasn’t made like this to begin with. Tons of updates will be needed when such an option comes in the future.
1 Like
I am not familiar with the features on MusicBrainz but it does sound like a useful tool. Hopefully, this will be implemented on BB in the near future. Cheers.
You’re right, but that’s what the disamb. field is meant to be used for. 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition doesn’t qualify for different editions. The field should be used to enter the difference that qualifies the edition as a separate entry. So in this case maybe “1st edition, illustr. by”, “2nd edition, illustr. by”.
That is a huge issue I was totally unaware of, thanks for reporting it !
I’m going to hunt that bug down ASAP. I’m honestly surprised that issue got past me…
1 Like
Thanks a lot for the cleanup !
This feature is in progress, but has been in standby for a bit. It should land quite soon though, and indeed solve some of our issues.
2 Likes
I may be wrong here, but my gut instinct is that, yes it does - that is, if “edition” here is what I associate with the Norwegian “opplag” which may have a different date but usually the same ISBN
Granted, some books may have a ridiculous amount of editions, but there is not too unoften differences between these, the 10th anniversary one may have some some new preface etc.
2 Likes
I partly agree with CatQuest, in that if there are any differences in the following editions (other than very minor like fixing typos and such) we’ll want to represent that with a separate Edition entity.
Now if it is a reprint or a following edition with no changes (and the same ISBN, cover, content, etc.), I don’t see much point in having a separate entry.
1 Like
Maybe I was unprecise again, but that was exactly what I wanted to explain. A later edition CAN have a separate entry if there is a significant difference.
But since most of the later editions are simple reprints without any change it is not enough to write “2nd edition” or “10. edition” into the disamb. field.
The difference to the former editions should be pointed out. Let it be “10. revised edition” or “5. edition, diff. cover” etc.
Otherwise you have to examine the submission yourself and find out the difference.
At the above example, you would have to find out yourself, that the three editions have diff. illustrators, which is, by the way, a rare difference, you’re usually not looking for.
1 Like
https://beta.bookbrainz.org/author/083d22a9-0aa9-462f-9b67-e9b57df17f8b
I think I’ve found a bug there:
the alias Pent Puulaane is listed twice (I guess the merge https://beta.bookbrainz.org/revision/28734 added the duplicate?) and trying to remove either one of them on the edit form results with “Submission Error: No Updated Field”.
Maybe it’s easy to fix as a 2-step workaround hack: remove them both, and then add one back, just thought it’s better to notify 1st.
Good find, thanks !
If you don’t mind, let’s keep it as is so that I can figure out what the issue is.
During merging, it should theoretically have considered both aliases equal and saved only one.
Strange to see two equal aliases like that, and definitely a bug that we can’t remove it.
Here’s the ticket for it: https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/BB-552
It happens all the time when I do a merge and forget to remove a duplicated alias prior to the merge.
I have managed to remove similar duplications by adding a detail to a field (such as the disambiguation), remove the duplicated alias, and then submit. I then conduct a further edit by removing the detail from disambiguation and it normally works.
But I tried that before @mr_monkey made his comment and it didn’t work. I also tried what @spUdux suggested and that didn’t work. I will leave it alone.
The situation has arisen where a joint pseudonym has been added as an Author credit:
Lewis Padgett which was a joint pseudonym used by husband and wife Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore.
This is not unique as there are also the Brothers Grimm (both also credited individually) and Erin Hunter which is a house pseudonym used by various authors (some of whom are credited individually).
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this practice but I thought it worthwhile to get opinions on the subject before the numbers increase.
1 Like
I think there is no other way to handle these group pseudonyms properly. The only problem that arises is that e.g. some works of Lewis Padgett have also been released under their real names, or just as Henry Kuttner.
1 Like
That is certainly something I have encountered with that particular pseudonym.
Unless someone has a bright idea, then this is probably the only method of dealing with group pseudonyms.
1 Like
I have given this some more thought and one thing that needs to be considered is whether to credit twice in the case where works were originally attributed to a group pseudonym and later attributed to the actual individual. That was the system on Bookogs.
There are lots of examples where a work was originally released under a house pseudonym, but has been republished attributed to the rightful individual.
If a Work is set up using the group pseudonym, then potentially someone could add a new Work for the individual not knowing the publishing history.
Is there a way of avoiding this situation, or do we just merge the Works when a duplication occurs?
1 Like
Well, if the title stays the same and users will have a look at the profile, it can be avoided, because you get a warning when you add an existing title.
But we all know that we will have some double entries nonetheless. So we will have to merge these later.
we actually do have a “was previously credited to” rel for author-work
also wrt Pen-names as aliases or as separate entries - #37 by anon91644636
I had previously argued (in BookBrainz) that author-author “collaborated on” wasn’t needed. I was wrong!
Clearly this is exactly what to use for pen names that are group or collaboration, or housenames used by a group (is “house” in this setting a publicist or a writer collective? (either/both?))
3 Likes
I made the mistake of raising too many subjects in my comment with the result people have focused on only one aspect.
The main point I was hoping to establish is whether both the group pseudonym and the rightful individual should be credited where that information is known. However, having the relationship “was previously credited to” takes care of that problem.
A house pseudonym (aka house name, or floating pseudonym) is the term given to a pen name created by a publisher for various reasons.
1 Like