Property talk:P747
Documentation
link to an edition of this item
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Conflicts with P629, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Type Q386724, Q95107111, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Value type Q3331189, Q26160672, Q63141557, Q17776219, Q104217120, Q386724, Q16363676, Q1057179, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Disambiguation edit
Not to be confused with issue (P433) (same label in German). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Creating entites used only for this Property. How to name them? edit
Did I use this the right way™? I created three entities as editions for The Time Machine: An Invention (Q627333). See:
- The Time Machine (Heinemann text) (Q14943161)
- The Time Machine (Holt text) (Q14943162)
- Die Zeitmaschine (Q14943165)
How should they be named? --Shisma (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Shisma, sorry the delay, normally we discuss it on Wikidata:Books task force. There are no strong preference, it is recommended to use "name of the edition (year or editor surname)", but your system is not wrong either.--Micru (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
consistency gadget edit
Added to User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js --JonnyJD (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Perfomances edit
Is this property suitable for performances (especially for musicals)? —putnik 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Qualifiers: Year? plus two don't make sense edit
@Nightwish62, Micru, Yair rand: We state that allowed qualifiers are language of work or name (P407), volume (P478), and applies to part (P518). I would like for us to consider the publication date of the edition(s) as another qualifier. I request this as from the base item you are unable to tell anything about the linked edition other than its name, and sometimes its language (if added). Where somewhere like English Wikisource has multiple versions of a work (eg. The Man With the Hoe (Q7749999)) there is value in being able to see the publication year as both a query, and simply being able to disentangle the various editions from the master item. Thoughts? I do know that this could mean multiple publication dates on a page, though I am hoping that as they are qualifiers rather than primary statements that it would be self-evident for the difference.
As a separate note, the "volume" and "applies to part" qualifiers are not evident to me for how they would be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I don't see how adding the publication date as a qualifier instead just as a direct property of the edition item would aid in making queries. Qualifiers aren't particularly more accessible. --Yair rand (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: 1) the visual queue at the book level is pertinent to help one identify the correct edition to be edited (otherwise they all look the same and you need to follow each link to find the version to edit); 2) it enables a user to readily identify a progression of a work and pick the earliest/.../latest, 3) the edition item itself may not have the year of publication which would preferentially be added to the publication details of the compiled work (via the "published in" link). I have added a third example to the above example. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nightwish62, Micru, Yair rand, Billinghurst: I've added the publication date (P577) which sound a good idea to me (I didn't undestand for queries, but for human it can clearly be useful). volume (P478) is rarely used, it seems to be used for collection and series (but it doesn't seems right to me, see BEED / Vladivostok (Q22251668) or BEED / Imperial Russian Geographical Society (Q23639405) where published in (P1433) seems better and enough). applies to part (P518) is never used and I see no use either. On a further note, Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P747 shows that a *lot* of others qualifiers are used, some are strange and/or probably wrong but some seems legit too. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
German translation of the label / deutsche Übersetzung der Bezeichnung edit
Mir scheint es wäre sinnvoll (deutlicher), auch auf Deutsch ein Hilfsverb zu verwenden:
- Englisch "has edition" ---> Deutsch "hat Ausgaben".
I would like to propose to change the German translation of the label from "Ausgabe" (edition) into "hat Ausgaben" (has editions).
--Villa loga-WB (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- just do it! 😀 --Shisma (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Done --Pasleim (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Edition or translation? edit
Should the label of this property be "has edition or translation" to mirror the inverse property edition or translation of (P629)? The word "edition" is not inclusive of "translation" among non-specialists. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An unqualified qualifier edit
Dear MisterSynergy, good evening, I was correcting On the Origin of Species (Q20124) with 35 "warnings" at the start. I arrive at Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) where I already correct the value. Now I have a problem with the qualifier has edition or translation (P747). P747 cannot be a qualifier but only a main value. I see in the history that this property underwent a change on June 15, 2018 with, in summary, a link on this decision. I haven't read it all, but why should has edition or translation (P747) only be a main value? If Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) is only entitled to one qualifier who can not be used as a qualifier, I lose my Latin? Help. It is frustrating to look for mistakes that may not be. I added exception to constraint (P2303) to the constraint in has edition or translation (P747) (to report the problem only), but it is useless, since each misuse is an Item. Apparently there are 288 misuses. How many of these entries have the same problem? What needs to be changed: exceptions, scope,… ? —Eihel (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this looks broken.
- In June 2018 we created the property scope constraint (Q53869507), which works differently than the "constraint scope" that we also have. My edit that you have mentioned was part of an automated batch that moved some of the "constraint scope" to "property scope" where it fitted the intention. I do not insist that this is ultimately correct, and I did not check the situation in depth before making this move.
- That said, I do not think that this is your problem here. Rather, I consider has edition or translation (P747) qualifiers on Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) claims bad practice. P747 formerly had the label "edition", which was changed to "has edition" (coincidentally as well) in June 2018. Instead of has edition or translation (P747) qualifiers, I think that stated in (P248) references with the same values that are currently being used for the qualifiers would be a more appropriate for Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) claims—however I am not sure whether it is the best choice. This should be discussed on Property talk:P1036 before being implemented.
- —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Value of qualifier should always match values of Q properties edit
Currently there are following allowed qualifiers constraints: language of work or name (P407), volume (P478), publication date (P577), place of publication (P291), edition number (P393), publisher (P123) etc.. The problem is that the Qs should have the same properties with the same values as these qualifiers. For example, take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel (Q279022) - it has has edition or translation (P747) set to Guns, Germs, and Steel (Q60372539) and the Q60372539 has publication date (P577) = 1997, however it's not set as qualifier value in Q279022. How to achieve consistency here (automatically or semi-automatically)? --Kanzat (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Resolving error linking Q12797994 and Q107278413 edit
I'm new to Wikidata. I'm trying to add information about the current authoritative translation of the Book of Concord (Q12797994) into English (Q107278413) I've put the has edition property in the Book of Concord item and the edition of property in the The Book of Concord entry. I get an error flag in both items. What am I doing wrong? CTSmithre (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Reversed change of scope edit
@Lectrician1: You don't get to unilaterally change the scope of a property, I have reverted your changes. This property exists in a form, and that is its form at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: Yeah, I understand. That's fine. I guessed it would be just kind of weird with this property in use but now 2 separate inverse properties. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Add Property Edition Type edit
Not all editions are of the same type, especially for popular books. Therefore, I'm proposing to add a Property: Edition Type. This property would have four types: Original; Reprint; Illustrated Edition; Edited Edition. Original would only apply to which the original author contributed to. Reprint would be a reprint of an original publication. Illustrated Edition is a reprint with additional/different graphics. Edited Edition has been edited by an editor. This additional property would allow for a finer degree of distinguishment between editions. Languageseeker (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Change spanish label of the property edit
Text in English
I propose changing the spanish label of the property has edition or translation (P747) from "edición o traducción" to "tiene edición o traducción" since the former is ambiguous and it can be confused with edition or translation of (P629) (whose spanish label is "edición o traducción de"). I'll change the label on 2 May 2022 00:00 UTC if nobody opposes to this proposal.
Texto en español
Propongo cambiar la etiqueta en español de la propiedad has edition or translation (P747) de "edición o traducción" a "tiene edición o traducción", debido que el primero es ambiguo y puede ser confundido con edition or translation of (P629) (cuya etiqueta en español es "edición o traducción de"). Lo cambiaré el 2 de mayo del 2022 a las 00:00 UTC si nadie se opone a esta propuesta.
Rdrg109 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Lectrician1 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
value-requires-statement constraint publication date edit
I deprecated the value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864) for publication date (P577) since there are many cases where this property is used to link a subclass which doesn't have a concrete publication date, e.g. Wikipedia (Q52)has edition or translation (P747)Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391).
inverse constraint with P629 is deprecated edit
With the introduction of translation of (P9745) I'm going to remove the inverse constraint with edition or translation of (P629). Some of the works should link back via translation of (P9745) instead. Midleading (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)