... and explained at Wikidata:WikiProject Books. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: For the images, it might need to have versions of editions. Multiple scans of the same edition.
Then in the technical, sometimes the images from the most perfect scan of the book are impossible at the moment to work with. An example: I have one Frank Baum book with images from two sources.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't typically use images unless there is only a cover image, instead I use scanned file. See something like The Afghan War (Q19077572) is an example of what I do. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Each edition is its own version; each edition would have its own WD entry, just as at enWS each edition is reproducible, and we can have multiple editions, though only one version of each edition. The label used to be "edition or translation" and that is the way of WD. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am not talking about using images here, I am talking about how the components of books link together and of using the images on other wiki. I have also seen a lot of variation in the application of the word Plate. Most often it is an image page with very little text and a printing process that is different from the printing of the text. Occasionally, it is a half or third page image which means the same print process as the text.
- I have seen the same book scanned twice by two different either scanners or software and eventually uploaded to the same site. So that is physical copy and scanner/camera information.
- Also, the scan of the photograph as printed in the book/journal vs. the scan of the actual photograph print which might still exist and perhaps a scan of the negative might exist.
- When I have tried to link the index page at wiki source to here, it required a url input that I got bored trying to fashion.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
A Wikisource-linked copy cannot be both a "book" and a "version". In fact no data item can be both; it is either one or the other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This can't have entered public domain in the US in 1923. It was still under copyright when it was published in 1911. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I thought that everything that was published before 1923 became Public Domain in the '70s.
- It does, but that's not the date that it entered public domain. The 1923 date it a cutoff for the current US laws, and that date will change this January. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, the UK copyright law is 80+YAD, not 100 years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- The copyright police at the commons told me 100 years and also knew where to find if that book was allowed anyways--and, I should have found that source of information, it seems. So, sorry and thanks.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: what then is the link back for "based on"?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There isn't one, and deliberately so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, when putting a publication date on an edition, only the earliest date for that edition is used, not the dates of later printings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to me, that if there is only one date allowed, it should be the last date then because that would be the one that is relevant to the copyright laws in the United States. But the last date is boring, however relevant it is while the first date is not so boring. I only put a date on if there is a page that has printed the copyright. I think that one should be re-thought.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)