Hey everybody! I've been traveling and working a lot the last half of 2016 and this continues in 2017.

I'm curious what the "About/Subject" credit is.

A subject of narration. Isn't it? It's very helpful to contain this field in biographies for example. It's up to user to include this field.

And in my opinion, a book or an article should be totally devoted to that subject to include it as a field.

Are there any standards for using it? For example, a book about Los Angeles, California, one user might say the book is about Los Angeles and another user might say the book is about California and still a 3rd user might say the book is about U.S. cities with Spanish names.

You can include more than one 'about' field )) I saw some folks collect in this field some weird things like characters like "Walt Disney's Pinocchio". Also I would use this field in the case when it's mentioned in the title or in a chapter title in some way directly or indirectly. But don't use some very general terms like 'philosophy'.

But don't use some very general terms like 'philosophy'.

This is what the Genre category is good for, right? Is that what makes them different?

A book about the cities of California would be in the Geography genre, but the "About/Subject" would be California. Is that how you're seeing it?

If we only could browse by genres here ))
Let's discuss more on this as excerpts from this discussion could finally go to FAQ about fields. The usefulness of this field is awesome. We can accumulate bibliographies about certain things or persons in different languages, this is not achievable by search, for sure.

I would think that as time goes by, this might surpass the Genre fields. I imagine users putting in many "About" per submission.

Right now, it's open to spammers and trolls though since anyone can use the field for whatever they want.

"Right now, it's open to spammers and trolls though since anyone can use the field for whatever they want"
Is it only about 'about' field ? How is it protected from vandals ? I think it's valid for the whole project at this time. But that's what we the users are here for - keep it sanitized.

I saw some folks collect in this field some weird things like characters like "Walt Disney's Pinocchio".

That was probably me. :) Now that we finally have "Franchise" I can actually update it to a more appropriate credit role - though that is also the subject of the book, so I don't find it that "weird".

i would have thought that you'd only use it to connect a book to another credit, e.g. with biography so that books about a person appear in the list of books that they've contributed to; or you'd use it where Series isn't quite right - e.g. all the books that i've added about Warhammer 40,000 aren't necessarily part of a connecting series, but they all have the same logo on!

i would have thought that you'd only use it to connect a book to another credit

Agreed, though I think there are probably subjects that will remain just as subjects. For example there are some popular historical figures that might be worth gathering under a credit role even though they really haven't ever written anything.

I would think that it needs to be some sort of "entity" though, just so that we can make a distinction between the credit and genres.

all the books that i've added about Warhammer 40,000 aren't necessarily part of a connecting series, but they all have the same logo on!

Wouldn't the Franchise credit be better for Warhammer 40K?

possibly!

Yes, the London page is exactly what the About/Subject field should be used.
And used for anything that isn't a series or franchise as those are more "branding" than a subject anyways, although there may be some overlap.

Go to most any public library computer and/or website and you will find subject as one of the search fields.
For example: https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com

And I feel you should use as many subject fields necessary to describe the work.

For example: "The Artist and Me" book, listed at the San Francisco Public Library:
https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/3269855093_the_artist_and_me?active_tab=bib_info

Hope that helps. :-)

BTW, you guys are awesome!

Go to most any public library computer and/or website and you will find subject as one of the search fields.

I know - I just thought that the discussed genre expansion/tag cloud was supposed to cover them. But anyway, if that's how people feel the credit role should be used, I have nothing agains that, and I can forget about the genre expansion. I'm just a little confused I guess... :)

I'm just a little confused I guess... :)

That's why I started this thread, was because I found something similiar to London.
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/157321-Bruges

I guess I'm OK with it, I'm just used to how we do it at Discogs. It's got to be "as on release". With this, one person might put London, another London, England, and still another, London, UK. Before we know it, we could have multiple "London" pages in the database.

With this, one person might put London, another London, England, and still another, London, UK. Before we know it, we could have multiple "London" pages in the database.

Well, of course, but that happens always when people don't bother to double check the credits. ;-)

But - there are multiple cities named London, there is at least one in Canada and multiple in the United States. Wouldn't it be logical to actually name it as "London, England" as we do with locations in Discogs?

Anyway I just created my first subject page, for Robin Hood. :)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/89188-Robin-Hood

Before we know it, we could have multiple "London" pages in the database.

London, London, England and London, UK are all correct, so maybe we need something like an "ANV" for this as well.

  • Should use ANV for this.

I know - I just thought that the discussed genre expansion/tag cloud was supposed to cover them. But anyway, if that's how people feel the credit role should be used, I have nothing agains that, and I can forget about the genre expansion. I'm just a little confused I guess... :)

In my mind, the About/Subject field is equal to genre expansion.
Genre is typically high level. Fiction, non-fiction, comedy, mystery, etc.

And "Tag Cloud" is a method of showing the subject or genre expansion (or whatever you want to call it).

Honestly, I don't care what it's called, as long it's a way of searching for books by a description that might not be apparent by the title.

The only reason I would use About/Subject is because that's the way you'd go about it at a library.

Anyway I just created my first subject page, for Robin Hood. :)
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/89188-Robin-Hood

Nice!

In my mind, the About/Subject field is equal to genre expansion.

When it was suggested, I understood it to be for artist/company credits only. You know, for a book about Picasso show up on Picasso's page. It was never brought up in the genre discussion. Thus the confusion.

But if we continue to treat it as an expansion of the genre list, IMO a couple of things are needed:
1) They need to be separated from the rest of the credits. Maybe display them below genres?
2) We need to make clear where the line goes, i.e. what is a genre and what is a subject. IMO the genre list is now a mix of genres and subjects.

When it was suggested, I understood it to be for artist/company credits only. You know, for a book about Picasso show up on Picasso's page. It was never brought up in the genre discussion. Thus the confusion.

Gotcha, I must have missed that discussion.

But if we continue to treat it as an expansion of the genre list, IMO a couple of things are needed:
1) They need to be separated from the rest of the credits. Maybe display them below genres?
2) We need to make clear where the line goes, i.e. what is a genre and what is a subject. IMO the genre list is now a mix of genres and subjects.

I agree. And I'd definitely shorten the genre list.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/162224-Hamster
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/162226-Rabbit
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/162218-Cycling

So now we have some general unspecified subjects. That's doubtful. Next we'll get 'human', 'nature' subjects. That's too general. Persons as subjects, cities and museums as subjects, musical bands is OK for me. Characters mostly go to franchise field, it's OK. But do we need to collect unspecified cats and rabbits and food elements, some activities like cycling, hunting as subjects? In my opinion it should be more specific. Historic events as a subject - questionable. All this could go eventually to some cloud tags system. But we don't have it now.

Hi, thought I'd give my pennies worth.

I'm adding subjects where I can for publications where the subject focus is clear.

Like you said phasics, bands, people, locations are understandable as they are quite specific.

I understand with the other entries they may seem vague, but those publications do simply focus on those subjects. You could go even further to say that https://www.biblio.gs/book/4674-How-To-Care-For-Your-Hamster which has the subject of being about Hamsters also has the subjects of Animal Care and Pet Care & Advice.

I guess with any new feature we will need to see how this all works out in the end.

What do you think about how sound and vision uses the new tag "about/subject" here?
https://www.biblio.gs/book/48173-Ruta-66-60

Eg, what kind of subject is "Jack Kerouac & The Beat Generation"? Copy+paste?

Personally I don't like but it seems users are glad with it. Can't give a reasonable explanation, it's more like a feeling, maybe it's just because it's something new.

Is "about/subject" a cloud tag? a linked Free Test section? Maybe a collision between wikipedia, subgenres, FTF and/or whatever...?

I was one of the user who originally asked for the credit. And now, I am also having reservations about how it is being used.

The reason I wanted a credit such as "Subject" is because I am adding biographical or critical works which are on a specific historical person, and it made sense for them to be linked to the author profile. I also saw that we need to link books about specific media franchises (Star Wars, Simpsons etc).

I don't think the Subject / About should be used as an extension of genre descriptions because such descriptions are inevitably subjective (if not contentious).

In my opinion the Subject / About should only be used to link to historical entities, whether that be persons, institutions or media franchises (etc.). If we want the credit to be useful it needs to have a relatively exact use.

It should not be used for genre or for general classification ("cycling", for example) for which lists or tags would be more useful. Of course, this is only my opinion.

On a similar note, I think we should agree on a convention when it comes to locations. Perhaps it should be standard that when listing place the convention is: city, country (e.g. London, Canada).

is there a way that About can only be used to link to an existing credit?

I didn't realise it's intended use was just to link to historical figures, but that makes me question why it can't be used to refer to other things.

In my opinion the credit should be used to dictate the subject or subjects that are covered in the publication. I personally would find it useful if I could say find all publications that have a focus on Ford Mustang's.

However I dont think this works well as a traditional credit entry, but would work better as some kind of tag system instead.

I also think this only works well for non-fiction publications - as like others have mentioned for fictitious works this can be subjective.

Characters mostly go to franchise field, it's OK.

Mostly, yes, though some characters are in public domain, characters from myths/folklore are not owned by anyone and can be used by anyone. I think for those About/Subject credit is better. Or should we request a Character credit?

On a similar note, I think we should agree on a convention when it comes to locations. Perhaps it should be standard that when listing place the convention is: city, country (e.g. London, Canada).

Agreed - though I think including states and counties should be also allowed (if needed). Many US states have cities with the same name, sometimes there are even two of them in the same state. IIRC there are like 20+ Glendales in the US, two of them in California.

In my opinion the credit should be used to dictate the subject or subjects that are covered in the publication. I personally would find it useful if I could say find all publications that have a focus on Ford Mustang's.

Yeah, it's not a bad idea IMO, especially since the genre/tag cloud discussion seems to have been buried and forgotten. This is still a living thing, and nothing is set in stone. I see the possibility to gather books of such specific topics on one page a good thing.

Is it worth starting a wiki listing all current subjects?

Is it worth starting a wiki listing all current subjects?

I don't think so, because the subjects will be created faster than we can track them. There will simply be too many.

How about any general human activity ? Like 'prostitution' (https://www.biblio.gs/credit/169980-Prostitution), 'hunting', 'collecting coins' etc. As for me it should not get into about/subject field. Let's postpone such things until we get a proper tag system. Maybe we should define and maintain a list of categories for this 'subject' field ?
A specific person (historical), ogranizations (museums, libraries), locations like cities (resolve disambiguations - if disambig exists - like in wikipedia - by putting country in parenthesis. 'London' as widely known city and 'London (Canada)' as less known city). Musical Bands. What else should we put here ?

How we should treat cities with different names in different languages? Do we use the English name, or the local name? Personally I would prefer the local name, but I don't mind the English either.

'London' as widely known city and 'London (Canada)' as less known city).

Why not just follow Discogs and use "London, Canada"? I mean that's how it's probably usually referred as. That way could also avoid having to use another set of parentheses for example in the Glendale case. IMVHO:

Glendale, California
Glendale, California (2)

is better than

Glendale (California)
Glendale (California) (2)

How detailed should we be, especially with magazines? I mean I was last night looking at my Game Informer magazines, and if I list every single game that they talk about in a single magazine, the list is gonna be long...

I've also thought about the detail level as well.
Generally, I add what is on the cover and more from the "Contents" if I'm passionate about it.

For example, I'd love to see all the books and magazines about Prince.
At this time, I'm only seeing one, but would love to see this grow.
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/190276-Prince

I'm also passionate about music composition and production, so I'd love to see a page with media about a particular subject like this page: http://www.biblio.gs/credit/193797-BOSS-DR-5.

And then to link to the companion sites like Discogs or Gearogs would be incredible.

As for games, I've added several Zelda game-guide books.
It would be cool to see the magazines and other media that have reviews or articles about them too. :-)
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/174970-The-Legend-Of-Zelda

Generally, I add what is on the cover and more from the "Contents" if I'm passionate about it.

Yeah, I've followed a similar principle.

And after digesting it a bit, I think we really can't limit it. I know I've bought magazines for a small article about a subject I'm passionate about. Back in the days when internet didn't even exist I did it actually quite often.

And then to link to the companion sites like Discogs or Gearogs would be incredible.

Yeah, I really hope they are looking into doing that, it has been requested before.

I love seeing this! This is why it can't be limited!

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/94272-Twin-Peaks

And it's only gonna expand!

Yeah, I created that to find more stuff about Twin Peaks. :D

In case of defining subjects like "Record" or "Book" what's the best form? singular or plural: "Records", "Books"?

Records would it be Records, they are generally known as a book of records.

This is the first time I've signed into Bibliogs since Fall 2016 so I apologize if I've missed the discussions that lead to the creation of this "credit." I just noticed this at the top of the forum and wanted to say that I too think it's a mistake to start using this for freeform, genre-type purposes.

A credit entity such as "Records" is too non-specific to be helpful IMO. Are we talking about audio recordings on vinyl? The recorded history of events? Criminal records? World records? Does there need to be "Records" "Records (2)" "Records (3)" etc. to link to the different meanings?

Opening up the "credit" entities to amorphous concepts like this is just asking for trouble as the site grows. One person's "records" is another person's "phonograph records" is another person's "vinyl" is another person's "vinyl records" etc. In my opinion, a "credit" should be limited to an entity that is credited on the book itself (or credited by a verifiable external source). Clear lines should be drawn between what qualifies for a "credit" and what qualifies for a "genre" (or "subject"). For example, why is "Jazz" a genre and "Cycling" a credit?

Otherwise, as mentioned above, more instances of this are going to appear: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/162250-Jack-Kerouac-The-Beat-Generation
At the moment, the actual publication linked in the above "credit" doesn't even point to Jack Kerouac: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/29631-Jack-Kerouac

Clear lines should be drawn between what qualifies for a "credit" and what qualifies for a "genre" (or "subject"). For example, why is "Jazz" a genre and "Cycling" a credit?

Actually, Jazz is currently both:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/189072-Jazz-Music

IMVHO it should be a credit only, otherwise we have have to have every single music genre/style on the list. And after all, the books are about jazz.

But I agree with you, we need to draw some kind of line, somewhere. I don't think the situation is out of hand yet, but it possibly could be.

Personally I think we should leave the Genre list for actual literary forms and genres (Adventure, novel, poetry, etc.) Just move all the subjects from the list to credits.

A credit entity such as "Records" is too non-specific to be helpful IMO.

I have nothing against creating a subject entry for records, but I think the credit should be as precise as possible. ksdfjsldfj probably means vinyl, so for example "Vinyl Records" would be better.

Just move all the subjects from the list to credits

I'm curious what the site gains from mixing genre-type Subjects in with Credits. I can't think of anything besides the short-term upside of not having to wait for management to add subjects (or the developers to implement an improved way to handle genres — what ever happened with that?). But maybe I'm missing something.

In general, I thought it was a database no-no to mix different data types in the same table. Aside from allowing the (inevitable) entry of incorrect data (e.g. someone entering a publisher credit to a subject), it would be harder or impossible to set up a filtered "advanced search" that included subjects. For example, if jazz was a credit rather than a genre, it would be difficult to do a search like:
Format: Magazine
Genre: Jazz
Cover Date (range): 1960-1969
Publication Location: New York

Don't get me wrong, I think users should be able to create / use micro-subjects including "every single music genre" — I just think there's a better way to go about it than hacking the Credits.

I can't think of anything besides the short-term upside of not having to wait for management to add subjects

Well, at least personally I appreciate the possibility to add a profile, explaining the subject.

Originally the About/Subject was created to be able to link to an existing entity in the database, for example a book about Shakespeare to Shakespeare, which I think is more than appropriate for a credit. People, companies, cities, and other type of "entities" are not genres.

It's just sometimes when you introduce a new function to an open database, people come up with new uses for it, or don't necessarily use it the way it was intended... That's why this thread exists.

For example, if jazz was a credit rather than a genre, it would be difficult to do a search like:

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question (I don't much about coding), but wouldn't it be possible to enable search for an entity since it's attached to a specific credit role?

personally I appreciate the possibility to add a profile, explaining the subject

True. That functionality really should be added to Genres at some point!

wouldn't it be possible to enable search for an entity since it's attached to a specific credit role?

I'm no programmer by any means, though I can imagine a couple ways it might be possible: Complex filtered search within a credit main page (similar to the simple keyword search that exists within a artist main discography page on Discogs), or a complex filtered search that included credit role specification like you're talking about. The latter might include non-desired results if it pulled every credit that included the term, rather than was the term (e.g. a search including Credit: "Science" Credit Role: "About / Subject" might yield results that included "Political Science" and "Christian Science").

Neither is as elegant (or I'd imagine as easy to implement) as the type of filtered search on Discogs here: https://www.discogs.com/search/?q=&type=all
Which I believe is possible because the different data types (Genre, Style, Format, etc.) are segregated in the database.

And not to get off track, but another type of functionality that would be nice to have is the ability to hierarchically link Genres, similar to the "parent label" function on Discogs. In other words, Music would be the "parent" to Jazz, Sports would be the "parent" to Baseball, etc. That's more of a matter of how to deal with Genres, though.

Anyway, folding Genre-type Subjects into Credits seems like a pretty important and consequential decision and it would be helpful to get some kind of input from the database manager.

That functionality really should be added to Genres at some point!

Let's just move them to credits too. ;-)

Which I believe is possible because the different data types (Genre, Style, Format, etc.) are segregated in the database.

When something is attached to a specific credit role, wouldn't it be easy to segregate them if needed? I mean wouldn't the dev team be able to sort them easily because of that? They could create a subject cloud, or something?

And not to get off track, but another type of functionality that would be nice to have is the ability to hierarchically link Genres, similar to the "parent label" function on Discogs. In other words, Music would be the "parent" to Jazz, Sports would be the "parent" to Baseball, etc.

You can do that to at least with subjects, but it requires using basic HTML (which is really the extent of my coding skills lol). But I think we need some sort of linking function(s) for all profiles, would be a lot easier.

Anyway, folding Genre-type Subjects into Credits seems like a pretty important and consequential decision and it would be helpful to get some kind of input from the database manager.

True, I would be interested in hearing their thoughts, and in general what is possible.

As for games, I've added several Zelda game-guide books.

Following some earlier examples in the database, I've entered all the different parts of a game separately, but now the entry for Persona 4 has been merged under "Persona (Videogame Series)"
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/195180-Persona-Videogame-Series

Would like to get more opinions on this.

Personally I'd prefer the different parts separately as often people are looking for material for a specific game instead of the whole series.

Until a feature is added that allows grouping these together . . .
My preference is to "credit" the different subjects separately, so they have their own page, like I've done with the Zelda books.

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/174970-The-Legend-Of-Zelda

With that being said, on the "The Legend Of Zelda" series page, I've listed the individual games and linked to the appropriate pages here on Bibliogs.

So on each book page, I use the "Franchise" tag twice. Once for the series, e.g. "The Legend Of Zelda" and once for the actual game, e.g. "The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes."

It really is a matter of implementing this type of functionality, because I've done this very thing with ASP and SQL over 10 years ago.

Another thought, I think the ANV should be used like this: "The Legend Of Zelda" ANV "Legend Of Zelda"

My preference is to "credit" the different subjects separately, so they have their own page, like I've done with the Zelda books.

Yeah, what you've done with Zelda is pretty much what I've done with other games as well. I think it makes sense. Even though the games are part of the same series/franchise, they are still different games, and I don't think they should be all grouped under one entry.

Until a feature is added that allows grouping these together . . .

I think what we need is a possibility to link profiles to each other. Maybe have like a credit role type of drop-down with different options since we only have one type of profiles.

Hi Mirva. I split Persona into a series as I can't see there being more than one entry for Persona Q. I think most gamers are more interested in the series as a whole, I could be wrong though.I think Mario might need splitting with Mario 64 being added. You've got a Mario vs Donkey Kong game which I think should be a series. I think we are in danger of adding loads of Orphan pages.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/195596-Mario-vs-Donkey-Kong-Tipping-Stars

When something is attached to a specific credit role, wouldn't it be easy to segregate them if needed?

I don't really know. But given the time it takes for features to be implemented and bugs to be fixed both here and on Discogs, I'd imagine it would be better to get things right from the beginning rather than work under the assumption that the developers can fix something easily at a future date.

You can do that to at least with subjects, but it requires using basic HTML

I don't like hard-coding stuff like that — it doesn't allow later manipulation of the data like a layout change that seemed to have happened recently on the book pages. Plus it's a huge hassle to fix links one by one if something minor changes (like the urls across the site), or if html gets disallowed like it is on Discogs.

I hate to be all negative about this stuff, especially since I have very little knowledge of database and web design and I might be wrong. It's just kind of crazy to me that there's not more direction or participation from management about the fundamental structure of the database! (I wasn't around in the early years of Discogs though, so maybe that's how it was back then, too.)

I split Persona into a series as I can't see there being more than one entry for Persona Q.

I'm not sure what you mean. Why there should more?

There were at least entries for Persona Q and Persona 4 Arena Ultimax, which are two different games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_Q:_Shadow_of_the_Labyrinth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_4_Arena_Ultimax

I think most gamers are more interested in the series as a whole, I could be wrong though.

I think most gamers are interested in both, I know I am. While the interest might be for the full series, things like game guides, reviews, and expansion novels are more game specific. If I'm looking for a game guide for Civilization VI, I shouldn't have to browse through everything related to the whole franchise.

That's why I like what sharpmath has done with the Zelda games. Also the entries are not orphaned if they are connected to each other.

I'd imagine it would be better to get things right from the beginning rather than work under the assumption that the developers can fix something easily at a future date.

True, and I'm not confident about the whole deal either. From one point of view it sounds like a great idea, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it will work database-wise in the long run. It would be great to get feedback from the devs.

That's also why I've personally shied away from adding general subjects like "wallpapers" or "dancing" to credits, and just used it for people, companies, and similar entities. But at the same time I try to keep an open mind and get people to discuss about it so that we could go forward. I feel like this issue is not only causing confusion among users, but it's also stalling the genre list development.

I don't like hard-coding stuff like that — it doesn't allow later manipulation of the data like a layout change that seemed to have happened recently on the book pages.

Me neither, and I would actually prefer if HTML was forbidden and they would just implement the functions.

It's just kind of crazy to me that there's not more direction or participation from management about the fundamental structure of the database!

I'm guessing they want the community to build the database. It's just there isn't much of a community yet... :-)

I don't particularly like using HTML either, but it's something I am comfortable using and it's a means to the end in the current state of this site.

Another issue, there is no way to sort any records on this site. I can't even see my submissions in date added order, only alphabetically.

I think some of the frustrations of the site are: changes aren't rolled out on any regular basis, there is no roadmap or plans published, and the mods don't communicate that often, at least publicly.

I sometimes think that all the time I've spent will be for naught if the greater Discogs company decides to scrap the site.

But, the idea for this site is incredibly awesome and more lofty than even Discogs in a way, and it's cool to watch it grow.

Onward we march...

Couldn't agree more, sharpmath.

Btw, it also would be cool to enter a book as a subject. There are a lot of articles and even books about certain pieces of literature. I'm not quite sure how to achieve this though, just a random thought that popped into my head. :)

about/subject: Dead Souls
about/subject: "Gogol" (but as it formally appears here, I believe in Russian)
OR
about/subject: "Gogol's Overcoat" as in the short story but also the quote by Gorky, iirc, about all Russian authors coming out from under Gogol's Overcoat.

But I think it would be best for the info to go to the author's profile in most cases, unless it is so well known that it could serve as a profile unto itself, to which add'l books would link.

I think the harder part would be finding the books about that book (in terms of going back over books that have already been entered).

I have plenty of books about [Russian] writers, books about books in the form of anthologies with criticism, but I've not entered about/subjects for the overwhelming majority of them.
I suppose one could enter Life of Insects (Pelevin) as about/subject Kafka's Metamorphosis, but it doesn't reflect the situation very well since it is based on Kafka's Metamorphosis rather than being about it.

Perhaps some kind of tag if we are ever given the use of those? Or link to the book in the DB from the author profile, with very short relevant bibliography.

In the last example, perhaps add a sentence to Kafka's profile
Books based on [ ]: [link to Pelevin's Life of Insects db entry]

I hate not being able to edit a post.

The thing is that currently the About/Subject credit would create a separate credit page for the book, and I feel it would be a little bit redundant. It would be cool to be able to link directly to the book page itself - but I'm also aware that we would probably need a "master release" for the book first, and then link to that.

Right, that was why I suggested adding to the author's profile as a link; or adding about/subject the author; perhaps both for completeness' sake.
It would also allow other books about books by that author or about the author in general to be added on the author's page w/in the current system.

One of my suggestions was to be able to have an author profile page with the same functionality as in discogs; not sure if that would help or not.

Or the idea of "tags" that has been floating around, though not sure exactly how that would work unless they would be searchable (I'm pretty sure the tag idea has been added to suggestions as it has been around for a long time).

If this double posts as well I'm going to give up in frustration.

I agree the about/subject would be redundant unless it was used in multiple subs, but also I think it would be great to link the about/subject to the author's page, which is possible right now in the profile section.

sorry, I mean the book sub, not the about/subject page, unless there were sufficient entries so the page would be justified.
there are so many variations a user might enter as about/subject, including spelling and The/A/neither, I can see the population of the profile (about/subject) being more work than it might be worth.
in the future perhaps use of a tag n [book] by m [author], each with their own hot links back to the author and main book, theoretically speaking.
Although a main profile for a book seems to me much more problematic than that of an album.

Hopefully the correct forum cathegory???

My concern is as follows:

To create in the Index list of magazines & periodicals a cathegory "Jazz" and file all magazines dealing with jazz under this roof.
When searching for "Jazz" in the magazines you will have them all together which is not the case at the moment.. With the add topic method we will find only 3 Items.
I have alonre contributed more than 100 and have no Intention to change them all because I have abou 45 complte Volumes to add.
It would be good to have them all not only under the general cathegory jazz (here books only) but for magazines and periodicals also under the magazines separated from the books.
JCN

Re: your question posed in the "magazines" thread; there is no feature as such; so there is no way to do exactly what you'd like in terms of format separation on the "Jazz" about/subject credit profile (which is in index form).

The features on the "Explore"/browse home page allow you to narrow down results by format (like magazine) and genre; jazz is in the "genre" drop-down on the submission page, so you can narrow results like this: https://www.bookogs.com/browse/book?genre=Jazz

I think the best approximation to what you want in terms of narrowing by publication type would be accomplished by selecting the genre Jazz when submitting.
However the most thorough list would be obtained, as the "Jazz" profile already exists, by entering/selecting Jazz in about/subject as well as under the genre dropdown.

Thanks for the Info.
Yes it helps to browsw first "jazz" and then the subcathegory "magazines".
I can live with that.

I've added a couple more Playbills, and as there are movie versions of some of plays I've entered as subjects, I wonder if it is needed to separate the movies and the plays, i.e.

Fiddler on the Roof (Play)
Fiddler on the Roof (Movie)

mirva, I have thought about this for a day and I don't believe it is necessary. Firstly, I doubt if the film versions will ever get a mention on Bookogs (I could be wrong) and secondly, where do you stop? Should the play version of Fiddler on the Roof be further broken down into the city and year of production? It could go on and on. As an end user, I think I would be happy to see all alternatives returned searching for Fiddler on the Roof (to use this example).

Under what subject would you expect to find "true" ghost stories/depictions of events?

auboisdormant wrote:

Under what subject would you expect to find "true" ghost stories/depictions of events?

I'd start with "paranormal" or "supernatural"

And maybe "ghost story" or "ghostlore"

Ghostlore is good, I like that. I have often wondered what to do with so called ''true ghost stories''as of course there is no such thing in reality, just people who think they have seen or heard a ghost.

I've got some spirits in the cupboard.

I catalogue all that as 'Esoteric' (with no subdivisions, like a sufficient mark of shame)

sharpmath wrote:

I'd start with "paranormal" or "supernatural"

And maybe "ghost story" or "ghostlore"

Thanks, sharpmath. I think ghostlore fits a lot of the books, if not all of them. I like it.

I had considered "paranormal" and "supernatural", but alone their scope is just too wide, and I just recently created a Ghost Stories subject to cover books that are about ghost stories (but do not contain any), but maybe that could be named more aptly.

I have often wondered what to do with so called ''true ghost stories'' as of course there is no such thing in reality, just people who think they have seen or heard a ghost.

Same here. I have also been very mildly bothered by the Ghost Stories genre being a mix of literary ghost stories and "true" ghost stories, and wanted to see if a distinction can be made.

I also wanted to try to find a term that wouldn't be too judgmental, or that wouldn't impose my own views on the books or the database.

Would anyone be open to a discussion about not using the numerical suffixes for About/Subject credits that are purely subjects, and finding some more workable alternatives?

I just think that mixing these subjects with other credits makes them harder to find, and to be honest they also seem a bit odd (this might be just a personal thing though).

Some examples:
https://books.discogs.com/credit/269945-running-2
https://books.discogs.com/credit/341582-skepticism-2
https://books.discogs.com/credit/487372-rome-2
https://books.discogs.com/credit/746525-ruins-3
https://books.discogs.com/credit/690900-time-4

https://books.discogs.com/credit/370593-a-nightmare-on-elm-street
I created this entry for the franchise two years ago and after that, admittedly, I used it but did not refine it. So far, it has only ever been used for the franchise, but the profile and links refer exclusively to the 1984 film.
Should I change the whole entry and add a (franchise)-suffix or try to edit it in a way it matches both, film and franchise?

BadMoon I agree it was confusing. I have added the suffix '(franchise)' to the Credit and added a profile that is based on the franchise and swapped the Wiki link to reflect that change. I have removed the links to the film and soundtrack as it just complicates matters. A Credit for the actual film can be created if the need arises.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.