I just discovered that we’re no longer supposed to use “written by” for translated works, but rather “provided story for.” I understand the idea behind it, but I feel like the whole thing hasn’t been well thought out.
1. It’s completely counter-intuitive; nobody says the book Pride and Prejudice was written by Jane Austen, while for the book Stolz und Vorurteil she merely “provided the story.” She is the author of both books. How do you prevent new users from constantly getting this wrong?
When you add a work to an author, which you naturally do in the case of a translation, too, the “written by” relationship appears automatically. You have to change it manually. That is obviously not how it should work for a translation. How can this be handled?
If you look at the edition page of translated works there is no author attributed to the works:
How did you discover this? Is there any announcement saying this?
I agree with what you said, but I also haven’t seen anyone arguing this should be done. Can it not just be some one making a mistake and you assuming this to be the rule?
The definition of the relationship as it appears in BB currently is:
Links an author to a work they provided the story for.
This used for adaptations and similar, like comics.
It’s not about the author of a translated work, but about specific situations where one person comes up with the story but some one else actually does the writing.
provided story
links an author to a work they provided the story for
this is used for translated works, because while the author wrote the original story, this translated work wasn’t literally written by them
And I discovered it because @spUdux started to change the relations and left a note. There was no announcement at all…
Looking into this, it seems these are changes to the documentations by @ApeKattQuest_MonkeyPython which are contrary to how the relationships have been used in BB, what they were created for and their actual definition. These changes seem to have been made without explanation, discussion or understanding. Here for this specific situation:
These changes make no sense, but were pushed to the documentation without explanation or review.
Besides the points that you made, correctly, there is also the obvious issue that many works aren’t stories, but according to these changes you have to use the “story provided” relationship to link it to its author.
Looking at the documentation as it appears now, it is a terrible mess of half-written sentences, missing parts, notes to the documentation writer, etc. This should not be presented to the editors at all.
Hi! this looks like a mistake by us, we’re currently looking into it!
Those looks indeed like unfinished notes, but they should not be in the finished doc
also that “provided story on” change has been reverted as a concept, as we’re going to go a head and use “written by” but with an attribute “translated”
(however monkey still needs to write the code for that feature )
Go a head and use “written by” for translated works, (but maybe make a note of it in the revision note/annotation.)
I think that translations of an author’s work, unless made by the author themselves, shouldn’t be shown on the artist’s overview (I’m borrowing this term from MB). Just like in MB, a page for all of their relationships could be added listing everything, because right now translated works are kinda taking space and can create the impression that they’re separate works. It can be kinda confusing seeing books written in multiple languages for authors that mostly or only write in one language.
As @ApeKattQuest_MonkeyPython pointed out the translated works will be tagged with an attribute ‘translated’, so the overview will display the original works and the translated works in different ‘sections’. As you easily can see, there are no sorting algorithms at all at the moment, so the larger artist pages are all very messy. Will take a while
)