Author when translated with notes, etc

[Jan]

Here's the Example:

Title as shown by LOC (and my edition):

The politics of Aristotle. Translated with an introd., notes, and appendixes by Ernest Barker.

Edition 1st published: 1958
1stPublished (different publisher) 1946

LOC shows Author as Aristotle.

Now Aristotle wrote this in 350 BCE. Questions:
1. Who is Author- Aristotle or Barker?

2. What is 1st published date-1946 or 350BCE?

This should be a fun discussion.

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

The question is not which should be listed as author -- both should. The question is who gets primary billing.

I vote for Aristotle.

[Jan]

I agree. Here is the way I entered the book:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33...

I opted for 1946 as 1st published because that is the 1st publication with the notes and appendixes.

It's either thator 350 BCE.

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

The problem with listing someone as "XY, Translator" is that GR thinks "Translator" is part of the author's name. I would delete that, and put a notation about him being the translator in the book description.

I don't think GR will even allow you to enter BCE dates. ;) Regardless, I agree that the 1946 date makes sense.

[Jan]

It looks like the translator is displayed in an appropriate way.

Ernest Barker, Translator at:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33...


I'm confused-how does it cause a problem for GR?

Maybe GR should have a standard way to enter and recognize translators. It's pretty common especially for classics and The translator is a key differentiator among different editions/translations.

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

The problem is that GR sees Ernest Barker, Translator as a different person than Ernest Barker. Moreover, it thinks the first one's last name is "Translator" which leads to some oddities elsewhere.

Yes, GR should (and is planning to) add a separate Translator field. However, my understanding is that it is a non-trivial undertaking, and will probably take some time.

[Jan]

Then I will change the entry

[Jenna]

So to make sure I have this correct, if I am adding or editing a book, though various editions of a book may be merged, we can/should add the translator as a second/third author? (Until GR fixes thia?) (i.e. for a classic work that gets translated and translated and translated.) Sometimes people like to read all the works by a certain translator, also, and they somehow get "lost"...

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

Makes sense to me.

[Nenangs]

Just want to be sure,

What is the current convention in GR for the name of translator, before a specific box is provided:

Shall we put them in the author's box (in the "2nd or 3rd author" of course)? or

Shall we put the translator's name in book's description box?

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

Pretty sure current GR custom is to be inconsistent. ;) But I think it was agreed that translators belong as secondary authors.

[Lisa]

Oh gosh. I've been putting them in the description field but I actually think that they belong in that second position. And hopefully we will get a translator field at some point because different translators make for different books and reading experiences.

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

Pretty sure I switched at some unknown point from the description field to the second author position. No way to know where to look for the ones I'd like to fix now. As I said, "current GR custom is to be inconsistent."

;)

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

I thought the agreement was the description field?

Now I'm not sure. Maybe we discussed it more than once? Or never really came to a consensus? I definitely don't think the author of an introduction belongs in an author field.

The trouble with waiting on the new fields is that since adding them is complex and involves major database changes, it is unclear when it will happen.

[Lisa]

Well, I thought that we had agreed on the description field for everyone who's not an author: illustrator, translator (these first two probably belong in the 2nd/3rd fields in my opinion,) those who write introductions, etc.

But I could have easily missed something.

So, is the agreement an author box for translators? Or have we still not reached an agreement?

I've relegated a ton of translators & illustrators (even the ones for picture books where they're probably more important than the author of the text) to the description field.

What are we doing now?

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

'ellifino. ;)

[Melody]

I thought the decision was to put non authors in the description too. That's what I've been doing.

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

Ok, let's call that the consensus then. With exceptions made for special cases (like the translator who was also the editor of a book of short stories written by a whole bunch of different authors that I ran into the other day).

Translators, like illustrators, go in the description.

[Lisa]

That's fine with me. (Rivka's post # 19)

[Jan]

I would like to add that when the editor goes in as the author, the fact that the person was editor should be in the description.

When people enter an editor as:

First Last (ed.), GR thinks the last name is (ed.)

This is similar to the translator problem (see Rivka post #4 above)

[Nenangs]

Ok.

I really hope that the Translator(s) and Illustrator(s) fields will be available soon though.