I notice that there is a Credit titled Various which seems to be used when users are overwhelmed by the sheer number of people credited and resort instead to this generic term. I also noticed that there were a number of Various credits along with a number in brackets which seemed to denote a count of the uncredited people. As these conflicted with the variant numbering system, I consolidated these to just Various.

Personally, I think this generic credit is pointless. I wonder what other users think?

I think it's pointless too. It's not mandatory to enter all credits, so using 'Various' in this way seems really odd. Either enter all credits or none, but don't make up stuff.

I will give this another 48 hours, if there are no further comments then I will delete this credit.

+1 pointless

I have just discovered that the French contributors have generated their own version of various: Collectif.

I wonder if there are other language equivalents in the database also.

I have removed the Various credit from the publications that used it and marked the credit as a duplicate.

I agree with the general thinking behind this move when Various is used as an excuse for not being arsed to enter all authors, except that for this title and its other editions I used the Various credit because there were a large number of uncredited authors. So the authors are various but not creditable in any other way as they are not known.
It's not the end of the world since I could just stress this in the notes more clearly than I did, but I liked Various because it made it more immediately obvious.

Hmm. I can understand having a Credit for Anonymous, but I really think Various serves no purpose.

I would question why a linked credit is necessary in the situation that you have described. I think listing this in the Notes is sufficient.

Well, it's not necessary, just handy, I thought. Doesn't need to be linked; but since it was there and seemed to fit my requirement at the time, I thought "that'll work for this."

I'm not arguing for it coming back, I can do exactly as you (and I) suggested and expand the notes. Just wanted to point out that there's another scenario that perhaps didn't occur so that I'm not tarred with the "there-are-too-many-credits-and-I'm-not-typing-all-those' brush. :D

I'll point out that I'm not very able-bodied any more and it takes an age to type anything, so I might be forgiven for going that route, but I didn't. I just wanted to credit correctly and that title was written by multiple unknown authors only three of whom are known (but still uncredited).

I really think Various serves no purpose

Same here, especially since we are not forced to enter a main credit like in Discogs.

Another one I got reminded because of this thread is "Unknown" - I've used it when the credit has been exactly that, but I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary. I also wonder if we need three different entries:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/29850-unknown
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19466-unknown-author
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/37813-unknown-artist

I would simply use Anonymous with an NV for all three. Anonymous is a credit for someone whose name is not known.

Anonymous would cover various, too, in my above scenario, if I really needed it to, with accompanying notes.

I have just discovered that the French contributors have generated their own version of various: Collectif.

Yes, Some french books has this written in their credits : Collectif

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.