Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer beherrscht Deutsch auf fortgeschrittenem Niveau.
nb-2 Denne brukeren har nokså god kjennskap til norsk bokmål.
es-2 Esta persona tiene un conocimiento intermedio del español.
la-2 Hic usor lingua Latina mediae difficultatis conferre potest.
fr-2 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances intermédiaires en français.
Users by language

author name string Edit

author name string (P2093) is for adding an author's name to a work when there is no data item for the author, or when the author's full name is uncertain. It should never be used on a data item for a person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource linked components are version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) Edit

... and explained at Wikidata:WikiProject Books.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

You are back doing this again. Wikisource reproductions of literary works are editions. If it appears in a journal from independent authors, and can be republished, then it is an edition. It could be considered an article too, though that would need to be qualified, of what it is an article. Please would you be able to go back and resolve those recent additions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of the version I made were collapsed, usually starting at wikisource and then being reflected here. Granted, these were versions of poems and not books. Attempts to stop this from happening at wikisource were prevented by you. The quote was something like "there is a mechanism for resolving redirects".
@billinghurst: I have been assuming that the Scribner's stuff that is in the Main (at source) will be "folded" into the journals when they (the journals) are started. Other "not attatched to a scan" works have been, see the Fairy Books, for instance. Maybe my bad assumption is a good recommendation?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not understanding what you are saying. I don't believe anything that I have said here is contradictory to anything that I have said at Wikisource. Reproduced literary works at Wikisource are editions, simply as they can/are liable to be reproduced, and that makes editions. If we have multiple versions, we would create a versions page that would link to the work item. Whether they are subsidiary to a rootpage, at WS or not, does not matter to WD, it adapts and does not change the fact that they are editions. Plug the data in correctly and WD will do what it needs.

Redirects are irrelevant to this conversation. Typically any redirect at a sister would not appear as a WD item.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@billinghurst: When I made a versions page, at source, which was then deleted and turned into a redirect at source to the only instance at source (an action I understand and no longer angry about), that redirect folded things here so that the version page I made for the poem is now the link in the non-version wikidata item.
I don't want to keep doing this. I suspect this is not your goal either.
Moving the shorts into the journal main is simply the best solution, and most elegant, and most tidy, and coolest (to have first editions where they are first), and encyclopedic (to have source be a authority by example for first edition). Please ask Xover of his scan matching abilities.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly I am doing rubbish job at getting you to focus on my point ... When a transcluded Wikisource edition of a literary work is itemised/recorded here, it is an version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) it is that simple. Please do not change them to be a literary work (Q7725634) that is wrong per Wikidata:WikiProject Books. I used a contextual heading, with a link provided that points you to what I am discussing.

Anything that is happening on WS should be discussed there, not here. I don't work that way. Whatever else you are discussing has no context to what I am addressing and is both confusing and polluting what I am trying to get you to do here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly you are not grasping the actuality of when you convert versions to redirects at source, you are causing this battle (of which I was on your side here and there) to be lost here. You might be just responding poorly to me losing directly and with dignity. Are you doing that?
What is the problem with moving those articles, at source, which are credited to the journal, into the journal space? Don't worry about acknowledging the research, responding positively by putting them in the right place was the goal.
Perhaps you know of the inevitable collapse of versions into works and are just taking delight in my angst? Moving the articles is the cool and elegant solution.
btw, all I did yesterday is use article and deprecate (I am still not fond of that word) version. And, were you about during my lamentations about en.voyage making it to the en.pedia Moon before en.source did?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Brown's School Days Edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Also, the UK copyright law is 80+YAD, not 100 years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: what then is the link back for "based on"?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't one, and deliberately so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Retellings and derivative works Edit

When you have a retelling of a novel or play, the new work is not an "edition" of the original, but a derivative work (P4969). I've corrected this for the retelling of the Two Kinsmen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: One of the things I like about edition is that it requires a link back. I miss that for derivative works.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use based on (P144) for that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requires a link back. The little flag that goes away when "the derivative" gets a "based on" like "is edition" and "has edition" do. (I know "based on").--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow the instruction or don't bother Edit

Wikisource produced editions, not books, so this is just wrong. Stop it, follow the guidance at Wikidata:Books, or I am happy to escalate this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have merged second version that you were doing as it doesn't work that way. The WS version is edition was there and was always the edition. If you want the book item, then create the book item, but you cannot change what has existed for years as it doesn't suit you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make your WD input easier Edit

If you enable the WE-Framework gadget at enWS you can very easily add data for editions, and easily create an item all in the same framework. It takes out 90% of the shit that doing items over here holds. It isn't perfect but does for most of one's needs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aladin and Ali Babba Edit

@Hsarrazin: When you make the data for Aladin and Ali Babba, please log them here so that I can see the proper way that you are promoting here. Please, in the future, consider not just removing links but putting them in proper place.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q108793602 Edit

We have had this discussion before, please do not start creating two layers of editions. Our versions directly link to the literary work, they do not link to an intermediary edition. This is explained at Wikidata:Books. You cannot have an edition of an edition, that is not the model implemented here. If you think that the model is wrong, then go and have the argument, otherwise stop mucking up the system and just making more work for other people. Please and thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment Edit

Dear RaboKarbakian,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A work is not an edition Edit

Hello @RaboKarbakian: please don't confuse "work" and "edition". Avianus is not the author of "The Frog and the Fox", Aesop is. Avianus has translated Aesop's work into Latin, so "Avianus" should be added as translator (P655) of an edition item linked to The Frog and the Fox (Q19452345) with the property edition or translation of (P629). It seems you've made this mistake in several Aesop fables, for several translators. Please be cautious next time. Thank you. CaLéValab (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CaLéValab! It is really a challenge to know who wrote what. Many authors were writing "Aesop" fables. I got most of my information about authorship from the Caxton (1400s) and L'Estrange (1690s) and if you disagree with them, it is no bother to me, but I wonder who you think the real author(s) are and why. I was considering going through la.source next winter to correct anything that the Caxton printing and L'Estrange got wrong. But if you are better informed and so driven, then okay: yea! I am pretty sure that "Aesop" is fairly easy to question as an author, and difficult to prove. Please leave the work as is and change the author only though, unless you change the links and such. The goal is to inter-wiki link, or, maybe you think I have this wrong also....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Can you share more detailed references to the sources (like the titles and the pages of the books where you find the informations) ? CaLéValab (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, found it here indeed [1]. So why not keeping Avianus, but we should not put "preferred rank" on him, because other sources says otherwise. CaLéValab (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CaLéValab (there was an edit conflict, this is what I wrote:), Sure. s:en:Fables of Æsop and Other Eminent Mythologists is the L'Estrange (maybe the index is more easily navigated at s:en:Index:Fables of Aesop and other eminent mythologists.djvu. And the Caxton is at s:en:The fables of Aesop by William Caxton (Jacobs)/Vol. II. Also, I tried to gather the data items into a Perry-ordered list, but the wikidata modules find it a challenge. That collection is at s:en:Portal:Aesop's Fables, that set of links are presented in various forms due to my experimentation. But, all of the data items are there.
I am glad you found the one link. That Perry list should be very helpful to you. Whatever changes you want to make. Aesop is quite the legend! For a Slave, he gets a lot of publishing/authoring credit....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like you know more than me about Aesop. For my curiosity, do you know sources that discuss Aesop's fables paternity ? I didn't know Aesop' fable paternity was a complex subject, but it actually makes sense : it's like discussing Homer authorship, who lived not long before Aesop.
Also, just so you know, from a technical point of view, adding an item as "prefered rank" makes the other items invisible when doing SPARQL requests on wikidata, so your edits made "Aesop" invisible on several Aesop's fables. That's why we need to keep at least "Aesop" at the same rank as the others (like Avianus). CaLéValab (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CaLéValab I think when it comes to authorship, the Latin text is going to win most of the time with Chambry coming in second. I was glad to see el sources and gladly pasted the el title so that English titles could be used as well without conflict. The el.source versions were from a 1927 publication, but maybe that was a repub of an older book but I blame the mediteranean climate for the lack of intact texts from Greece. That Perry list is the best compilation I have seen (and the only compilation) but it is broken in places, a couple of the fables have the same number due to the same moral regardless of different characters, while others have different numbers with the same moral but different characters. And really, it is a mess all on its own with The Fox, the Wolf and the Bull being different than The Bull, the Fox and the Wolf which are both not The Wolf, the Fox and the Bull or The Wolf, the Bull and the Fox. One or two of the fables are found also in the bible!! Personally, I am most qualified as a mathematician. So, when I started cleaning up the en.source fables, it was the 4 year old within me who knew the most about Aesop and she was certain that Aesop had written all of them. But, my understanding grew up while sorting them. I changed many of the English descriptions to "fable attributed to Aesop" because I am not fond of unwinnable arguments with unknowable answers and with various (and quite esteemed) authorities (the fables in the bible are particularly eeky for that, for instance). That makes sense about Homer, really. The simple explanation is often the most likely. In 1500 years, probably someone will be going through an old twitter or facebook feed, trying to determine the real author of this meme or that, maybe they all get attributed at that time to Lolcat. I think it is the same. And I did toggle so that the other author name would "pull" easier than Aesop's. If my judgement was wrong about that (and I have nothing to support it or deny it), I am sorry, untoggle away. The thing I need to do, is to remove L'Estrange as author and replace him as translator. I might use software for that.... And, thanks for giving me cause to spill here. From mid-January to mid-April cleaning up en.s fables....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we having to have this conversation again? Edit

Please DO NOT mark transcribed/transcluded works at Wikisource as book type items, they are Q331189

they are Q331189

they are Q331189

Please follow the guidance at WD:Books. If you wish to make the argument that they are anything but editions, then go and have that argument, and then follow the consensus. In the meanwhile please follow the consensus, which is that they are Q331189.

Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

billinghurst I have nothing to do with those links. Thanks back at you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

digital distribution format Edit

Books were not distributed in digital format in 1910 or 1912. You are misusing that information. Yes, we have a digital copy linked, but the distribution format of those publications was hardcover, not digital. "distribution format" refers to the manner in which that edition was distributed, not to current copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EncycloPetey: I started using this just to note that it is a scan. The "work" is never a scan but the versions are because we have one. I started doing this after looking for scans online.
We also have several "reconstructed" scans which are pieces from here and there.
I think that you should consider allowing a whole single data item for a scan, especially if it is hosted at commons and in particular if it was made via the "scan lab" which is making some great reconstructions.
So, do you have a different and perhaps better way to do it? I really like having the index page with its scan and not with its transclusion. Anything that you might suggest that would encourage that separation would be awesome.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can still include a digital scan with the edition, but you don't mark that edition as digital, unless the edition was digitally distributed for publishing. There are digital publishers, and books and documents that come out originally as digital publications. Marking the distribution format as digital is meant for those publications, and not for works that were digitized much later. That is, you can link to digital copies of an edition at Internet Archive, Hathi Trust, and Commons, but we wouldn't describe a 1910 publication as "distributed digitally". The book was distributed in a physical hardback. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, when you removed the link from Q7176291 you removed the link at wikipedia to wikisource, potentially making it en.wikigutenberg where gutenberg is well documented and en.wikisource is not mentioned. Did you know that they are allowing wikidata links to redirects now? I think that having the wikis link is where the attention should be. If you can think of a different way to get that link back to en.wikipedia, I would love to know it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links to specific editions need to be added to Wikipedia directly using one of their templates. Our copy is a specific edition, and should be placed on the data item for that edition. You can see an example here
The best way to get a side-link from Wikipedia to Wikisource is to have a Versions page. See The Red Badge of Courage (Q1219239) for an example.
Sorry, but I don't know about the redirects. I think this is more of a Wikipedia and Wikispecies topic than Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EncycloPetey It's here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2022-11#d%3AWikidata%3ASitelinks_to_redirects wikidata is about linking the wikis together.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cross-wiki linking is one aspect of Wikidata. Its primary focus is as a database of information. And it is not simply about linking the wikis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, consider, that you moved the link and then had a problem with me because the link is there now. I had the scan pointing at the index and the images pointing to their page on the scan and the whole thing pointing to wikisource and wikipedia at wikicommons and you removed this and suggest that I paste a template at wikipedia? It is probably more easily done with the 2004 editor that maybe had a special button.
When I did the fables. If there was only one version at en.source then I made a data item for that with the book info on it and such but I put the site link at the main fable data, leaving its data sitelink empty. At the point in time in which there is a second version of that fable at en.source, the single link gets put back on its real data and the versions/translations page goes onto the main fable. I see no reason that these novels cannot work the same way. In fact, the way they do work well is that way.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the correct way to link. Edition information should always go onto a data item specific for that edition. Otherwise, the data itself becomes muddled by mixing multiple different editions together. And when the targets get moved later, that throws off anyone else who wanted to make use of the target links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just something to consider: Maybe the site link is not part of the data. Maybe a sitelink is a sitelink. The structure of my Kensington Gardens data was if not perfect, at least fine. The site link was just not where you would expect it. When you moved the sitelink, you messed up the data. Scans were associated at the wrong place, etc. I wonder if you would consider rolling back the site link and scan changes and look at the data that is there and without the sitelink as a data point -- tell me what is wrong with the structure of everything else. You broke it for here (wikidata) and there (wikicommons/wikipedia) and changed nothing really at wikisource except that now it needs to reach forward to link to wikipedia which is unable to link back. So, consider everything but without a sitelink being a data thing.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikidata is where people expect to find the structured data associated with a wiki-item. So if they follow the link from our Wikisource page to its Wikidata item, they expect to find info about the author, publisher, publication data, copyright info, translator, etc. If the link from a Wikisource edition instead goes to a generic item, then none of that data is made available to the person seeking it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content at wikisource is books. It is not information about all books. This book, this first printing of this particular book, will probably not have a list of versions at wikisource. The reason for that is that the content there is first the book, and then if there is another version, but only if there is another "book", that is when there is a versions list. But it is incomplete in the real world as it does not list all of the versions of this, it only lists the versions of our content "books at wikisource".
The structure of the wikipedia/wikicommons world is not the same as the structure of the same things in real life. Take for example the genera that contains only one species. This genera does not exist as a hyperlink in the wikiuniverse and yet, it does in real life. For the wikis to link, the sitelinks are not going to be able to follow the real world structure either. Slightly rounded square holes and round nuts.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikidata is not Wikisource. Wikidata's content is information about books. That's why the data is stored at Wikidata instead of at Wikisource. I understand all the counter-arguments you're making, and I used to agree with them. But now I understand what Wikidata is about.
Your argument about a genus with only one species applies only to Wikipedia. On Wikidata, and an Wikispecies, there is a data item separate for the genus and for the one species. Wikidata may also have data items for published synonyms. So Wikidata tries to cover all possibilities of the data, and the sitelinks are a secondary consideration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Maybe a "separate" consideration. Not secondary, (that sounds like this is not the job of wikidata, to provide interlinking between wikis) but separate. Separate and different and perhaps of an equal rank as far as goal achievement would go. Anyways, good night and happy presidents day --RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going to be nominating for deletion the false constructs Edit

Hi. Things like Q107661385 I am going to be nominating for deletion as they fail WD:Notability and WD:Books. They are not real constructs, they are just a scan of an a physical manifestation, and that is not notable. The published edition is what is notable. And yes, I know that you have some magical tools that you created to get your manifestations, but that is just lipstick on a pig.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]