Why have you for example merged the item for s:sv:Bibeln 1917 with the item for w:sv:1917 års kyrkobibel? I cannot see how that is according to what we have agreed in Wikidata talk:Wikisource. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I merged them because they are the same thing. How does that contradict the consensus? Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The consensus tells that we should have "edition-items" for every text on wikisource, instead of merging them with the "work-items". There can be several Wikisource-texts with the same texts (different publication-dates, orthography, translations etc). Take the Karl XII-bible for example on svwikisource. We cannot add them both to one single item. All versions of the Karl XII-bible, and they are many, do not have the same publication-date, publisher etc, and they do not all of them include the same range of bible-books. Therefor is it necessary to have separate items for each Wikisource text.
It's the same thing with for example "Raven by Poe". They are all based on the same poem, but they have different publication-dates, different number of verses, have different translators. They therefor need separate items.
The exceptions are the Wikisource-disambigs, like s:sv:Bibeln, who isn't a normal text-page in Wikisource, but rather a special kind of disambig, who lists all versions of the same text in Wikisource.
Nota Bene! It is still techically possible to have interiwiki between pages on Wikisource, even if they do not share the same item. Look at s:sv:Nya Testamentet (1526). We have not full consensus to apply this system to all of Wikisource, but it gives an idea of how we can accomplish Interwiki, even if the pages do not share items. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and when you have a disambig page for all the many versions of the 1917 official translation, that will be the one used in the item for the 1917 official translation. However, right now I can only see one page for the 1917 official translation, and that is s:sv:Bibeln 1917, so that is the page that corresponds to the item representing the 1917 official translation. Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's true, there is only one version of the 1917-translation here today. But I think we have to be consistent when we connect Wikipedia-pages with Wikisource. How do we otherwise, from the semantics, know if s:sv:Bibeln 1917 is a WS-disambig or not? When two or more sitelinks are to be found in one item, there is no way to make separate statements about them.
We do not have to make it perfect from the beginning. A lot of mistakes were made when Wikisource were added to Wikidata, but when we now have Arbitrary Access, we finally can have some good use for it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained mergeEdit

I'd appreciate if you could explain why you merged "translated text" (the product, Q28054891) into "translation" (the process, Q7553). Please add your rationale in the talk page of one of those items. Thanks, Waldir (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Titles beginning with articlesEdit

Please do not remove alias titles for which the article (a, an, the, le, el, die, etc.) has been removed. This is the standard form listed in many library databases, such as the Library of Congress. The article-free from of the title is thus important for matching against international databases for standard forms of the title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

St. AsaphEdit

I left that not completely accurate.

St. Asaph is the tune. And the other are the words.

Thank you for (probably) making the repairs...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting!!Edit

I have three versions of the hymnal. A fourth is oggs of the hymns which I plan to upload.

Change the edition of part only. Please!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are unable to make new items. If you are unable to make new items, let me know. I will make them for you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I will stop. I do not think that three levels of edition is correct. However, I will assume you have more wikidata experience than I have, and that you are following consensus that has been established with other wikidata editors. Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Yeah, it does seem excessive. I found that the only way to manage Lamb's Shakespeare (which each version had different images) was to make an upper level to manage them all. That had some versions that did not have one or two of the stories, another version that was issued in two journals and duplicated one of the stories.
I did not do this for the Botany of the Voyages, mostly because there was not another version (I think Petey has a microform version because that is where his image came from. If another version is found, all of the "chapters" need to be changed to "version".
Other versions of this hymnal include more and less of the one found at the wikisourcers.
I am a silent fan of yours, btw. And I only started on this because I noticed an edit of yours. Cheers! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
ps: the concensus has been very quiet lately.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Old songs and who wrote themEdit

It will take a very long while for me to get to the hymns. If you have the time and enthusiasm, finding and or making the original, like Holy, Holy, Holy and making either the upper level or the source version of the hymns or both would be helpful. Q57952029 is the source hymns list which has the source parts. Q57951785 is the upper level and has those parts.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: I don't have the time for this, unfortunately. I do, however, have a comprehensive list of every song in the book along with the link to the enWS page (or redirect) for the hymn item and the hymn tune item, if that is useful to you. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Works" vs "Editions"Edit

So, if we remove the links to editions of a work in various languages, how are the interlanguage links to them going to be displayed in Wikisource? Nikola (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nikola Smolenski: you can use interwiki links [[ru:Name of Work]] to display interlanguage links on Wikisource, until such a time as Wikidata supports the structure of Wikisource properly. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: The entire point of Wikidata is to avoid having to do that. Especially now that there are no more interwiki bots, such a solution is not really workable. Nikola (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikola Smolenski: While interwiki links is one of the benefits of Wikidata, it is not the "entire point". Rgardless, the interwiki model that Wikidata uses is designed for Wikipedia and, as you said, doesn't work well for Wikisource, but forcing Wikisource into the interwiki model designed for Wikipedia results in bad modelling and therefore breaks many of the other functions for which Wikidata is designed. Besides which, the directions I provided you are the result of community discussion and consensus on both Wikisource and Wikidata; I did not invent them; if you want more info on rationale or if you want to suggest changes, I recommend posting to s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium or Wikidata talk:Wikisource. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Christoph Demantius (Q497554)Edit

Please note that GND 300042930 and GND 300859945 refer to works of Christoph Demantius, not his person as such --Emu (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"As One Having Authority"Edit

The original Peter Pan was published in Scribner's Magazine, as "The Little White Bird". Most of the works in that magazine would be the first. (Incidentally, en.wikipedia claimed that Rackhams Peter Pan was the first and that was very very very wrong).

So, this is not a major reprinted and/or renamed work, but most (if not all) of the stuff in that magazine are first publication, not versions.

I have gone through this before. An article, whose title is in quotes "Made In Germany" that is still there like it was, wrongly changed.

sad, isn't it?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: That is very interesting. I'm impressed with your level of research on the subject. Are you bringing this to my attention because you object to my change to "As One Having Authority" (Q106410204)? The entity version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) refers to any specific edition of a work, even if it is the first publication (or the only publication). If you think it appropriate, you could use the property edition number (P393) to indicate that it is the first edition of this work. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, yes that I think it is not a version. edition number (P393) I thought was used for those items printed on title pages (and sometimes covers) "Sixth edition", "Illustrated edition", etc. I will have to think about (and look into) that. Also, I am glad to see you here and around lately.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: You are right, edition number (P393) might not be appropriate here. However, version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) is the correct item to use for any physical or digital instance of a work, including this one. The more abstract concept of the work per se, which would be an instance of work (Q386724) or one of its subclasses, should only ever be linked to Wikisource Versions pages (for works in English) or Translations pages (for works not in English). Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
When I was doing the Scribners here, my mind was full of so many of these articles that are in the Main, and moving them into the Scribners/Vol #/Issue # space. Once it is moved into the magazine space, I don't see any real reason (except in cases of disambiguation) that the Wikisource version not be listed as the "literary work" of it. It is all about linking the wikis, is it not? Do you know how many of the "literary works" link directly to the gutenberg version? I don't know the answer to this, but there is no constraint against this and I myself have done this. It is weird and kind of wrong to put constraints on the "Home" works (the wiki stuffs) and not on the "Guest" works. And, nothing against gutenberg, my only issue with them is that they rejected my LaTeX version of my book there.... So, I am rambling, but these are most of the reasons that I put "literary work" on that (and other) articles.
The other reason: so that it gets remembered and moved into is place when the journal is uploaded. Those stray articles -- there are a bunch of them! The sourcer recently started to link to the journal namespace, and that will be very helpful in the next few decades that might pass before the journal gets put there....
@Beleg Tâl:It starts to make sense if you put the wikis at the center of the wikidata universe.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I really appreciate moving articles from being on their own in Mainspace, to their proper location under Scribners/Vol/etc . That is exactly the way it ought to be done.
Linking the wikis is only part of the story. The main purpose is to provide a structured model for bibliographic data, which software can parse automatically. The ability to link articles on various wikis together is only one example of software parsing this data. The decision to treat Works and Editions as two separate types of item in Wikidata is important to ensure that data is represented and parsed correctly. And yes, even if we "put the wikis at the center of the wikidata universe" this is still necessary, as several Wikisources explicitly separate Works and Editions by namespace (Italian Wikisource is the most prominent of these).
As for Gutenberg works, if a work from Gutenberg is hosted on Wikisource it must be treated as an Edition rather than a Work. I personally would insist on having separate Wikidata items for each Edition on Gutenberg, but I am not really familiar with the Gutenberg project. So while I suspect that the Gutenberg works are being linked incorrectly, I can't really be certain. I can only really speak with certainty of how pages on Wikisource are to be represented in Wikidata. Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
There should be other ways to keep track of Scribners articles that need to be moved to the correct location in Wikisource. I frequently use my User space to compile lists of pages that need to be consolidated. For example: s:en:User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Alice Duer Miller has a couple of lists that I moved. Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Project Gutenberg ebook ID (P2034), it links directly to Gutenberg. en.wikipedia has many more gutenberg texts than ws, the "link in a list" vs "the silly little box" might have something to do with that. Perhaps there is a weird relationship between the two wiki's ... a reliable medium (like wikidata) would manage that.
The problem with your list is that it still doesn't show the journal information! The problem with my list (categories at wikicommons) is that if there are no images, there is no category. "First pages" solved that. Searching for "Scribner" or whatever the journal name at ws is how I found what I did find. With the red links, "What links here" will work.
Some of the things I have done here, I confess, are because I got bored with parts of it. Like typing "literary w" which was the shortest hand I could find to get that property. There is a gadget that helps which I have been using lately. "Duplicate this item", I don't think it is a preference, however, it was somewhere in the tools.
I keep the scan/index pages separate from the commonscat/Main, the commons and source work very well together that way. That makes the scan an edition, like you are saying, and the main (if transcribed from a scan of the original publication) a nice link for the "literary work". I am not saying that it is correct, I am saying that it works really well with at least two wiki's and maybe three.
Searching other sites for scans is a challenge because it is often unclear if the site is talking about a book or a scan or an ebook. I saw on one of these sites, where they had mentioned in the notes that the physical book (subject of the page) was photocopied and they linked to the scan. wikidata has no clear way of noting that. Open library doesn't either, nor OCLC. Even that site could only mention it in a notes section.
About software: I read an opinion about some "improvement" at wikisource, where the curmudgeon sourcerer was worried that the nifty software solution would be installed and then the author disappear and later, problems, changes, bugs would be left unsolved because the author disappeared. I am having that problem at the commons. I keep getting sent to a person who hasn't been around for a year or so. There is a lot to be said for "simplicity" in a community of volunteers.
Okay, "waxing philosophical" in the last few moments of my day. I probably should have ceased a couple of paragraphs ago. Thank you for your time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)