Open main menu

User talk:Samwilson


Tom Brown's School DaysEdit

You have broken all the wikilinks between Wikisource and all other related projects on this book. Wikisource has only one edition available, and no other page available for linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I've annoyed you. ("Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I'm not trying to do the wrong thing here!) Anyway: the link to Wikisource was not broken, but moved to Q20726672. That item is for the 1911 edition that's on Wikisource. Linking directly to the work (i.e. Q7815084) only makes sense if there's only one edition; for example, the publication date of the work is 1857, but the publication date for the Wikisource version is 1911. There should be an item for the work, and one for each of the editions. At least, that's how I read Help:Books. If I'm wrong, sorry! Please revert what I've done. Samwilson (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Reverting isn't possible with the creation of a new item. The issue is not how things are supposed to be done on Wikidata, where I am out of my depth, but how best to coordinate between projects. If a target is removed from all other links on Wikidata because it has been given its own item, the affected project ought to be notified, so that they can ensure links from them and to them are maintained.
In this instance, there is no general page on the English Wikisource, which was why I added it to the existing data item for the work in general. If we had a general page, and separate editions, it would all work as you have done, and indded I have followed some of that myself when dealing with translations of ancient Greek plays. But in this instance, there is only the one item on Wikisource, so isolating it as a data item in itself eliminates all possibilities of interlinkage. Wikipedia will never have an article about the 6th edition of the book; Wikiquote will never have a list of quotations peculiar to that edition; and none of the other Wikisources will ever have such an item either, because the 6th edition of a French translation would not be the same as the 6th edition in English. So, I don't see what purpose is served by having the 6th edition of the English original moved to a data item all on its own.
We on Wikisource have tried to collaborate with Wikidata mavins to sort issues like this out, but become lost in a mire of technobabble, and never know whether our concerns were understood, so I am grateful in this matter to encounter someone speaking to me in coherent, understandable English.
To put the question in another way: Should the English translation of the play Alcestis by Euripides be placed on a separate data item from the item for the original Greek text? If so, will there then need to be a separate data item for every Wikisource, since each has the play in a different language, by a different translator, in a different year? Does this mean that Wikisource should never be linked to the Wikipedia articles unless they are in the original language?
And should the English Wikipedia article on Tom Brown's School Days be removed as well, since it is an article not only about the first edition, but about all editions and even the movie adaptations?
I believe the only sensible interpretation is that a general data item for each work must exist on Wikidata, and links must be there by default. The "date" associated with that item is the original year of publication, and does not necessarily indicate that the item refers to the first edition. There must be a separate data item in existence for the first edition. Editions at Wikisources should only be moved to these edition items if that Wikisource has a general page as well, otherwise we lose all interwikis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unused propertyEdit

This is a kind reminder that the following property was created more than six months ago: inHerit Place Number (P2618). As of today, this property is used on less than five items. As the proposer of this property you probably want to change the unfortunate situation by adding a few statements to items. --Pasleim (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Thanks for the reminder! I've now got a CSV that I can use. Will try to get some done. Sam Wilson 23:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Cape Cod (Thoreau)Edit

So, even the original edition isn't linked from the primary data item now? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: Do you mean that the first (original) edition is no longer included in the primary data item for a work, but is given a separate data item? If so, then this needs to be clarified for the entire Wikisource community, since it will have far-reaching ramifications, and will affect hundreds of data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: (Sorry, I was still updating things. Thanks for adding the edition number.) Yes, the primary (work) item shouldn't have any edition-specific data such as links to scans etc. It should only contain data that is common to every edition. I'm looking for clarity about the use of inception (P571) to indicate date of first publication. And I'm not sure I'm doing anything unusual here am I? I thought this was how it was meant to be done: Wikisource deals almost exclusively in editions, and so it shouldn't impact anything we do there about displaying data etc. and even when we want work-level data (such as sitelinks to Wikipedia) then that's simple enough to get via edition or translation of (P629). It seems reasonably straight forward, and I think is how people have been doing things. (Basically, it's only Wikisource disambiguation pages that should link to work-items here.) Sam Wilson 05:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This isn't the way it's been done up until now for first editions at the English or French Wikisources (at the least), and that's why clarification is needed. One result of this is that there will be no interwiki links between articles about works at Wikipedia and copies of those works on Wikisource, without the addition of special templates at both sites: Adding interwikis directly to the pages doesn't work anymore because well-meaning but misguided editors / bots now routinely strip all interwikis at both projects, assuming that the links are set up with the corresponding data items at Wikidata.
Getting sitelinks using edition or translation of (P629) is simple only for experienced users of WP/WS/WD. For the majority of users, it is neither simple nor at all obvious. Even for experienced users, it means an exploratory scavenger hunt through several pages (with lots of scrolling) to even determine whether or not there will be an article / edition at the other end. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, how do we mark an edition as "first English edition (original)" versus "first French edition (translation)"? This won't be obvious at all from the primary data item and will almost certainly confuse some users. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Hm, yes, I see what you mean. :-( Okay, so do you agree that it makes sense to have separate items for each edition, and one for the work? Ignoring all usage considerations for a moment, I mean. That much at least seems clear from WikiProject Books. So we need to fix up the systems of linking on other sites? Links from Wikisource templates on English Wikipedia all still use page names, so far as I can see; I'm not sure about other Wikipedias. There are a few templates on English Wikisource (notably {{plain sister}} and similar) that can reasonably easily be fixed to traverse through edition or translation of (P629) — it sounds like that's the next step in this process, do you agree? Or am I getting it all wrong, and should just leave things as they are? My motivation is that I want to be able get associations between e.g. Internet Archive scans and Commons files, and that can't be done unless there is an item for every edition (some of which will point to multiple IA scans and multiple Commons files). Again, I'm really sorry if I'm muddying things! Sam Wilson 06:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This isn't an issue I expected to arise, so I will need to give the question some thought. I do think it would be silly to have separate data items where there is only a single edition extant in the original language, or where the "work" is itself an edition (such as the First Folio of Shakespeare).
We really need a common linking solution to be in place across all WP/WS projects. If we do not have this, then we will have even more frustration and anger at the Wikisources than we currently have (and if you check my talk page, you'll see I get periodic complaints about the current state of affairs even without worrying about editions).
I'm not sure that we will be able to get a clean set of connections between IA scans, Commons files, and Wikisource editions. There are instances where scanned copies include more than one volume or work, where the volumes were published in different years, or where Wikisource amalgamates separate scans into a single work. In short, the linkages are not one-to-one, nor are they likely to be. It is this Wikidata insistence on one-to-one linking that leads to most of the issues I've come across. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

original language of film or TV show (P364) is deadEdit

meant to use language of work or name (P407). Went through a deletion discussion and is deprecated for written works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Ah, yes I think I remember that now! Thanks for fixing it. :) Sam Wilson 01:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

w:Template talk:MarriageEdit

Can I get you to comment one way or the other at w:Template talk:Marriage, I do not care which way you vote, but the issue affects how Wikidata imports data from infoboxes for new entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Samwilson".