Misunderstanding about works and contains/contained - much fixing needed

Someone thinks that just because a work wasn't published on its own, it can't be contained in another work - whereas that's pretty much a poster child for using the contains/contained relationship. If it was only published as part of another work, then it only exists contained in another work!

They've written disambiguation notices like this on many works:

Devils of the Deep is actually included in different books and was never issued as a single title book. Therefore it should not be included in the Work-to-Work Relationship.

(Bold theirs, from: Devils of the Deep)

There's plenty that needs fixing in the Doc Savage - look for all the entries marked "not separately issued".

I also don't understand putting "not separately issued" in the series entry - Devils of the Deep is Doc Savage #123, and there's no reason that number shouldn't appear in the series list.

Is someone able to explain politely?

I'd be too rude, especially when going back on data that's over four years old. :(

You know, in this case I have always misunderstood this. If it's not published separately, it's not a work, I thought. I could have written that bolded disambiguation note myself.

There are two ways to look at what a "work" is:

At an general, abstract level, there's definition 3b at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work - "something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort : artistic production an early work by a major writer". This says nothing about how that work is published - it could be a short story that's only ever been anthologised, a multi-volume series, or it might never have been published. It could have been published as a paper book, an ebook, an audiobook, or all three. The "work" is defined not by how it's published, but by the content - the "exercise of creative talent" that it is.

In LibraryThing, a work is a thing that's cataloged as a work. If it has a work page in LibraryThing, it's a work in the LibraryThing sense.

In neither case are the details of publication relevant.

Devils of the Deep is a work, in both senses. It is contained within Devils of the Deep ; The Headless Men which is also a work, in both senses. There is a work-to-work relationship between the two, which can and should be recorded.

Devils of the Deep is also contained within Devils of the Deep & Five Fathoms Dead, and that relationship should also be recorded.

Furthermore, the work called Devils of the Deep in the first compilation is the same work as Devils of the Deep in the second compilation. And it would still be the same work if in the future it was was published on its own. All (LibraryThing) works referring to the same "exercise of creative talent" should should be combined together - that's the purpose of the LibraryThing work concept.

I'm not arguing so much as admitting that I had the same notion as the author of that disambiguation note. I'm sure we're not alone in this.

Bump because the Doc Savage series still needs help, and to fix the link in the original message.

Looking at who is entering the disambig and editing the relationships, it doesn't surprise me in the least. This person has a tendency to just go off and do their own thing, regardless of what the site has already established.

And based on their opinion, the work to work feature should never exist. Oh this was published on its own so shouldn't be linked to omibi. This wasn't published on its own so shouldn't be linked to anything that does contain it. *face palm* Seriously.

Okay, I've fixed one work, mostly because I found that the relationship history exists and can be used to redo what was removed. But this looks like a long list of broken work, from nine years ago.