The collection that caused the angst is not part of a series (and none of the stories it contains are part of a series either), so I’m mystified why you are discussing series.
If your comments on series were of a general nature, then I think the horse has bolted because I believe I have eliminated the handful of Edition Groups and Works that were used to collect series.
As an aside, when I first joined BB you asked me to provide you with feedback. I replied that I needed time to formulate an opinion. I now have a good idea how the site works, so how do I contact you directly?
I’m just doing too many things at the same time and wrongly connected two neurons together
Not particularly relevant for this discussion, sorry for the confusion.
I suppose however that such an approach (“fix me” public collaborative collections) would be good to keep in mind in case you or I or anyone want to keep track of entities that need correcting, but where the guidelines are either non-existent or not clear enough or some mechanism is missing on the website, or for edge cases that don’t fit.
You can send an email to monkey “at” metabrainz.org , or simply in a forum post if you don’t object to it being public. Perhaps other users will chime in with more.
@mr_monkey as you rightly inferred, on Bookogs it was common practice to repurpose credits that were deemed duplicates or that shouldn’t have been generated. In fact, it was a cottage industry among the more experienced contributors to recycle the “rubbish”.
Paired with my belief that deleting credits on BB could result in my being tried at the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity, resulted in my actions. I can assure everyone that there was no malice intended.
I do need clarification on a particular example to fully understand the system.
It is quite complicated because this work consists of 6 volumes that were published between 1921 and 1923. The first three were written by Jaroslav Hašek. The fourth was incomplete when Jaroslav Hašek died, and it was completed by Karel Vaněk. Vaněk went on to write two more volumes.
Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války could be considered as the overall title for the six volumes (omnibus editions with that name exist, usually consisting of volumes 1-4) or as a series name. The situation is analogous to the seven volumes of À la recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust.
At the time, I had no hesitation in retitling the Work with the name of the first volume: V zázemí. I then created Works for the remaining five volumes.
In the light of the retitling controversy, I wonder if best practice would have been to delete the Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války Work and start afresh.
While I have got everyone’s attention, the only titles I could find for the German translations of volume 5 and 6 were: Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk in russischer Gefangenschaft: Band 1 and Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk in russischer Gefangenschaft: Band 2.
Aha, my one and only (I think) contribution to BB rears its head
Trying to figure out BB when it first started and then never got the time to come back and figure it out…
Personally it makes sense for something similar to be repurposed, for me being linked to this changed version would be more helpful than a 404.
Band 1
*Vor dem Kriege* (intro of five chapters, no parts)
*Während des Weltkrieges*
Erster Teil: Im Hinterlande
Zweiter Teil: An die Front
Dritter Teil: Der Glorreiche Zusammenbruch
Band 2 (Weitererzahlt von Karel Vanek)
*Während des Weltkrieges*
Vierter Teil: Forsetzung des glorreichen Debakels
Fünfter Teil: In Russischer Gefangenschaft
There is no part 6/seperation of part 5 in this printing, but part 5 is much longer than the others FYI.
Edit: Actually part 5 does have the whole ‘Die Abenteuer von…’ in the title.
I have never read the book (it is on my list), but I know a bit about it as a Czech friend claimed it was the “greatest book ever written”. I will reserve my judgement until I read it!
It is very good, though I haven’t read it in a while! I’ll read it again soon.
And in my case a treasured possession from my grandparents house
I didn’t think my grandad had read a book in his life but he cracked up when he saw me reading this one, years ago.
I haven’t followed the guidelines for works but obviously it’s possible to have works as part of works in BB. See for example The Lord of the Rings. (BTW: Each volume contains two parts.)
According to english, german and Esperanto WikipediaOsudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války is one novel consisting of several parts. So I don’t understand why it should be a good practive to either repurpose the item as the first part or even delete it.
Why not create the parts one to four of the novel as part of the work instead?
And again: @Goldilox, you didn’t change/delete the links to Wikidata, OpenLibrary and LibraryThing and of course didn’t change/delete the link from Wikidata to BB. Such edits should never be a good practice.
By definition it is a collection, however the decision was made to keep the Work until such time as a way of dealing with series is implemented.
Wikipedia describes The Good Soldier Švejk as a novel, but then details the various volumes which were all published separately. It also gives English titles for the fifth and sixth volume which as far as I can ascertain were not published as separate volumes in English. As I discovered over the years, Wikipedia is a great resource but it should be approached with caution. I have found a litany of errors in various articles, some of which I have corrected.
The German edition that you cited is an omnibus and I have already discussed that above.
I did look at the links and I thought they had some relevance, but I see you have removed them. You were the one that added them, so that’s your call.
I strongly disagree with not treating collections, anthologies, omnibuses, etc as unique Works. However, this is a community sourced website and if there is a consensus of opinion on a subject, then there are two options: either walk away or learn to live with the situation. I fought a very bitter campaign to include these formats as Works on Bookogs and eventually I succeeded. There were some people that left the site because of that decision. Personally, I haven’t got the energy to go through that process again.
Wow, I feel happy that this discussion was led when I took a pause just because “works” weren’t implemented.
Just reading it is exhausting me and it reminds me that I wanted to add the “Martian Chronicles” a few weeks ago but stopped because I felt that this “work” has to be added as a work,
I am proposing the addition in the editor page of a link that redirects to MusicBrainz emailing page, which we can use while one is developed for BookBrainz.
This should give a slightly more accessible option to send a message to another user. What do you think?
I experimented sending an email today. I discovered that I had to change my email settings for the “Send me an email when someone messages me” setting from the default “never” to “always”. Eventually we had some success.
If someone hasn’t updated their email settings then you wouldn’t know if the email has got through or they have simply chosen to ignore it.
Instead it is used to specify the language which uses the particular form of the name. In most cases that will be “Multiple languages”, unless a unique language can be identified. Wikidata is one of the best sources for that information.
A bit off-topic, but it bothers me enough to respond:
That’s a very nasty topic title the OP decided on.
Especially since he mentions the name of a member in it, and calls him names, while this editor obviously puts a lot of work and effort in contributing to the database, and gives it a lot of thought and consideration.
People in the future will find and read this topic and associate the name of this editor with being ‘a vandal, a bully’.
In my personal opinion it would grace the OP if he edits the title to something more civilized. (if he has his initial frustration a bit under control now)
I appreciate your support, however eight years on Discogs has blunted my ability to be offended. Sticks and stones…
P.S. I see the title has been changed. Hopefully, instead of squabbling we can now work together to make this a successful database. That is my only aim.
People with confidence usually don’t get or feel offended.
But associating somebody’s name in public with a negative will easily stick with people who have no clue about the truth.
(a story about a sheepherder that in his life had build bridges, had taken care of the sick, saved a kid from drowning, risked his life fighting enemies, but got a nickname and a reputation because he once had a tender moment of weakness with a sheep comes to mind
