Can anything be done about wrong work relationships?

I noticed that there is a "contains" relationship between https://www.librarything.com/work/15130416/ and https://www.librarything.com/work/25244855, but the latter just contains a review of the former. Is there anything that can be done about that?

You can edit the relationship.

I removed the incorrect relationship and then added "is a commentary on the text of".

Looks like the other two need the same treatment.

Thanks.
Is it possible to actually edit a relationship, or just to add and remove them?
I do agree with >3 Petroglyph: that the other relationships of https://www.librarything.com/work/25244855 need the same treatment.

>4 wester: No, you aren't missing anything, it's not possible to edit, so removing and re-adding under the correct relationship is the way.

OK. I removed the incorrect relationships, added correct ones, and know now what to do do next time.

One more thing: the guy who has added this particular relationship has done the same thing (marking something containing a review as something containing the work) for many more books. Do you think we should alert him that this is not how it should be done?

You should probably send staff a message about it (with details).

>3 Petroglyph:
I'm uncertain on using "is a commentary on" in this situation – because if a magazine contains several articles, some of which are reviews, but the magazine itself as a whole isn't a commentary on the other work. If you see what I'm getting at? It's the review that's the commentary, the magazine contains the review. I only add a "commentary" relationship when the whole work is a commentary (though I wouldn't remove it if done in the way you use it in >3 Petroglyph:). Just wanting to make sure, if we're going down the route of making suggestions for how the user should/shouldn't be adding relationships about magazine reviews, that we don't give advice that might not be widely done and cause the user even more confusion.

>9 Nevov:

I agree that it isn't the most accurate name for the relationship, but among the ones on offer that's the one that I thought was closest to "is / contains a review of". (Perhaps to Tim's Antiquity-centric mind "commentaries" are more central than reviews, idk)

I did not realize I was setting a precedent.

I only add a "commentary" relationship when the whole work is a commentary

The set of relationships "allowed" by the system indeed assumes whole-to-whole relationships. So how are part-to-whole or part-to-part relationships handled? E.g. a short story in an anthology is later expanded into a longer publication? A single chapter is a scathing debunking of an entire book?

These are honest questions -- I truly do not know how these things are usually handled.

>10 Petroglyph: These are honest questions -- I truly do not know how these things are usually handled.

I've had a lot of questions about this in the past, and gotten plenty of confusing answers. :-) There are relationship types that LibraryThing just can't cover. Sometimes you just have to go for the "weakest" relationship possible.

A few threads with examples of my personal problems with this :-) --

https://www.librarything.com/topic/342799#n8012174
(This one arises out of problems with the LT definition of "What is a work."

https://www.librarything.com/topic/333735#n7562837
(Textbooks which have changed authors over the years.)

https://www.librarything.com/topic/346158#unread
(This just arises out of problems figuring out which book is which, so it's far less important.)