Feature:90164

We should support a "Based on" relationship between two titles. A title (or perhaps a publication) should be able to be "based on" 0 or more other works. A "Based on" record might consist of a link to the work (publication?) based on, and the nature of the relationship (expanded from; includes; expands; abridged from; revised version; experted from; restored) picked from a dropdown list.

This would handle fixups, expanded versions, revised versions, condensed versions, screenplay->novel conversions, and the like. This would probably replace Feature:90155 Add an optional "nature of the relationship" field to the Make Variant screen. This would allow variant title relationships to be reserved for cases where the same text (modulo minor changes) has been published under different titles or author credits. Having a separate but similar relationship for the various ways in which two different texts can be related will keep things clearer than further overloading the Varian title feature (already used for both actually published variants, and virtual variants used to put a title published only under another name on the canonical author's page.) I think this would be a very useful addition. -DES Talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The link should be two way. That is, If Work A is "based on" work B, this fact should be shown in the display of work B as well as in that of work A, if possible. Perhaps this would be should as "serves as the basis of" work B.
 * The link should indicate the nature of the relationship in some way.
 * It should be possible for a work to be "based on" more than one other work. This is essential if this is to handle fixups.
 * Since a work based on another work is still a separate work, if should have its own publication date and other metadata.
 * If possible there should be an option to display a combined title page for a work and all the works on which it is based. The feature does not require this, but it would be a nice addition.

See also ISFDB talk:Proposed Design Changes