Wikidata:Property proposal/reprinted in

Not done

Description	larger work in which a shorter work has been reprinted or anthologised
Data type	Item
Domain	written works
Allowed values	items representing written works
Example 1	Expedition to Belsen (Q108307261) → Belsen: Medical Aspects of a World War II Concentration Camp: PAPER 1 (Q53956727)
Example 2	[Item representing Rebel, H., 1907. " Lepidopteren aus Sudarabien und von der Insel Sokótra "] → [Item representing volume containing Rebel, H., 1931. " Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokótra im Jahre 1898/99. "] (see discussion at species:Wikispecies:Village Pump#Rebel, 1907
Example 3	The Bicentennial Man (Q468132) → The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories (Q2398251)
See also	cites work (P2860), quotes work (P6166)
Wikidata project	WikiCite

So far as I can tell we have no adequate method of modelling this relationship. Neither full work available at URL (P953) (as currently used on the first example) nor has part(s) (P527) seem adequate. Objects could be qualified with object has role (P3831), with values representing "original text", "revised version", "corrected version", "abridged version", etc., as needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a common and important relationship to represent for articles, short stories, etc. It could help connect items in anthologies to their first publication. Examples for different situations would be useful. For instance, make clear whether/how it should also be used for long items (monographs/books) that are printed multiple times. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Samuel (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why won’t published in (P1433) work for this? - PKM (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this also apply for facsimile? I would prefer not to limit this property to printed material only. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opionion published in (P1433) cover this perfectly. /ℇsquilo 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that published in (P1433) cover this perfectly. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @UWashPrincipalCataloger, MasterRus21thCentury, Esquilo, JakobVoss, PKM, Jsamwrites: @Jodi.a.schneider, Pigsonthewing: It's been a year and nobody addressed the opposing comments/concerns. BrokenSegue (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]