Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2014

Active discussions

West Bengal Public Library Network

I want to upload all books from this http://dspace.wbpublibnet.gov.in:8080/jspui/ website. Are any utility to upload as like https://toolserver.org/~tpt/iaUploadBot/step1.php ?-Jayantanth (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jayantanth, you are from Kolkata? Awesome! Unfortunately, Wikidata is not ready yet for importing books. At the moment books are only allowed if they have a Wikipedia article (WD:N) or used as a source (see Help:Sources). So you will have to wait a while, but it will be possible in near future. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that the objective of the WMF is to share in the sum of all knowledge, I think this is an excellent idea. GerardM (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been pondering over an idea that each and every book (or even work in even other forms) should have an entry in a universal database within the Wikimedia, that can be used as a universal master list that can be used for every need within and outside Wikimedia projects. Such a database will be a superset of any other books or catalog database that is being used now for various purposes. Many languages may be already prepared for such a task (eg. Malayalam) where almost all the books have been already cataloged and made available on free licenses. The above superdatabase should hold any entity even regardless of its notability. Viswaprabha (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Imho that is the task of Open Library (Q1201876) ("One web page for every book"). Wikidatas focus is on reference works: books and articles. Let's start with these items and later we might grow. Of cause contributions in Malayalam are more than welcomed! BTW: If you've got time, it would be great if you could translate some of the examples (titles and/or author names) given in the list "Book properties" like Gertrude Stein (Q188385): The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (Q6618986). --Kolja21 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Doctoral theses

The German WP talks about how to create a catalog of doctoral theses, see: Entwicklung einer Diss.Datenbank. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Two new templates

Please take a look at these new templates that can be expanded and improved. --Kolja21 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Authority control


Books

Comments

Good job and very useful! I have removed duplicate flags in the authority control template. Shouldn't properties restricted to a territory (Historic Scotland ID (P709), Mérimée ID (P380)) be included in the national list? --Micru (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The sections "International" and "National" shows the classical authority files. The third section ("Others") contains all other kinds of book collections and data bases. Not all of them are used for authority control. I think we shouldn't mix them. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Good job Kolja21! A quick note: BNCF Thesaurus ID (P508) is not properly an authority control identifier, but it identifies the term in the thesaurus from the BNCF. Right now, is the only thesaurus ID on WD (afaik). Soon, there will be more: in that case we will expand the template putting all the thesaurus ids in the same category. Right now, it's better as it is. --Aubrey (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe one should add search links as shown here:
SUDOC editions (P1025) search
OCLC control number (P243) search
LibraryThing work ID (P1085) search
לערי ריינהארט (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
more search links at User talk:Magnus Manske/missing props.js/help#Comments. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How should we use P437?

distribution format (P437) (German translation: Materialart/Vertriebsweg)

  • description = ways (media) how a video game, software and (maybe) film and music is distributed.
  • infobox parameter = en:template:Infobox video game (parameter name: "media")
  • datatype = item
  • domain = games, paid software and (maybe) films
  • allowed values = download, DVD, CD, record; but maybe also "Origin" or "Steam"

This property is currently part of the list "Edition item properties". Should we use it for book cover (Q13365136) (book binding)? And, second question, what kind of bindings should we add? There is a variety of specifications and translations. The three major bindings:

  1. hardback (Q193955)
  2. softcover (Q990683)
  3. paperback (Q193934)

--Kolja21 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to restrict it to book bindings, it could also be an e-book (Q128093) or an audiobook (Q106833).--Micru (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I was worried that P437 is getting overloaded. An audiobook (Q106833) can have different forms of distributions like CD or download. But it's ok since en:Template:Infobox book is using the same parameter called "media_type". I'll add the info to Property talk:P437. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Country of publication

Hello, Sorry to come late in the discussion, but we need a country of publication. Now we have a place of publication, but may includes a city or several countries. This is specially important regarding the copyright of a work. Beside, the city of publication is often not known, although the country is. And a work could be published in several places in one country, e.g. once in New York and once in San Francisco. And last, I have seen the place of publication to include several countries (PAL regions). Yann (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yann, the country can be inferred from the city, if the city is not know the country can be used instead. The place of publication for books is per edition (example with several places of publication).--Micru (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, in your example, there is no "place of publication", but there is "country: Netherlands". Yann (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The country you see there would be equivalent to "written in" since it is the work item (I personally don't endorse that use of the property "country", because I find it meaningless). If you check the editions you will see that each one has a different "place of publication".--Micru (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:BotMultichill added "country: Netherlands" for the work because of categories like "Nederlandstalige literatuur". That was an error. country (P17) is meant for geographical items (cities etc.). --Kolja21 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Authority control

From Russian use translate.google.ru: What is the principle of formation data Vikidal ? In Wikipedia English, German, French , there are hundreds of thousands of records with structured Authority control. Kaleidoscope endless ! ... VIAF, LCCN, GND, NDL, ... In different - different identifiers of a set of values ​​, I 'm not talking . There are outdated . And Vikidal packs added all new IDs . To work reliably so the amount of information possible. Example . Q503473. From the site viaf.org uploaded all the missing tags , including GND identifier equal to 004,058,518 . Three days later, this value is lost, and appeared 1010450-1 , also ranking in the German National Library . And under this fix , by the way , made ​​no rookie no source . Fill in Vikidal comes with Wikipedia, where there is also erroneous data . But check the values ​​directly from the sites of libraries and catalogs produced. The data source, in my opinion, weight. Once this process is necessary to synchronize and unify . In Vikidal one concept or a person there is a set of identifiers from one to 30-40 . It only Biblioinformatsii and site viaf.org. Some Wikipedia hooked retrieving data from Vikidal , some - not. And in each Wikipedia cited from 2 to 5 marks relevant to this Wikipedia . And the search for identity in this part of Wikipedia - look atom in the universe ! A clear system of classification , categorization , search tree. Need some kind of filter or report any system . Maybe come up with a template spreadsheet or property , replacing dozens in general lines interfering with unnecessary numbers, which is the only correct information on the subject of conversation . In this property include all identifiers of biblioinformatsii plus labels such as Freebase (P: 646 ), OpenLibrary (P: 648 ), Find a Grave (P: 535 ), IMdb and others , and they will all be in the same compartment , it will be easier sample and can not work with the whole article , and this compartment. I would like to see such a thing as protection for proven firsthand information. And in one place to see a summary of what , say, a person has to Vikidal , which ones have any identifiers and the degree of validation to the source , which identifiers are not filled . SUDOC for a label on people, and on the works - is also SUDOC, just another property . On the approach of NDL, so that the current situation provides the global turmoil and confusion shortly. A snack - Isaac Newton , appears to have lived in the 14-15 centuries . It is the job of ruling the article without checking . I have some little thoughts , I have them laid out and giving away something . Sincerely,--Пробегающий (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Пробегающий, I don't understand all what you are saying. But for University of Geneva (Q503473) you have entered the wrong GND identifier:
VIAF pseudo GND number: 004058518 (404 NOT FOUND)
Correct GND number: 1010450-1 (Université de Genève)
You have to look up the original source. For GND research the best database is Online GND. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
If I understood correctly, the complain by Пробегающий is about the large numbers of identifiers that are not relevant to all Wikipedias. If that is the case, I must say that it is not a legitimate concern, since it is the decision of each Wikipedia to decide which identifiers to use and which not, but here we have to support them all to suit everybody's needs. I agree that the arrangement and layout of identifiers in the Wikidata pages could be better, that is a pending issue that hopefully will be addressed next year by the development team with a more streamlined user interface (perhaps something like Reasonator?). As for verifying the identifiers I think we need a system similar to the one Wikipedia is using (example: w:MPP+), with a green mark when it has been checked by someone.--Micru (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. System of control information, may be in P143 "VIAF", but viaf.org/NNNNN. I import for University of Geneva (Q503473) GND and I made a mistake. Sorry. Reasonator is a good idea, but information must be full. w:MPP+ - that's it! And may be combine in group or in source put a property "Checked information". There must be some consistency between Wikipedia by field values and not on their set. My English is poor. Sorry.--Пробегающий (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Пробегающий, thanks for your suggestion! I have started a conversation about verified statements on the project talk page.--Micru (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!--Пробегающий (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
+1. Reasonator and MPP+ are both impressing. A huge step in style and quality. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
{hope I'm not too late…
AFAI understand, Пробегающий also expresses the concern about the fact that, just like wikidata, VIAF is also an evolving project, and that AC that could exist one day, disappear weeks or days later, mainly after VIAF clustering, sometimes after modifications in the original library files… I found many of them in my daily work…
would it be possible to launch a periodical bot task to check whether the AC still exist, using links on the respective databases, to remove those that have been suppressed, and if possible, updating the AC from VIAF (if OK) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

a master degree on authority control and everything

Hi! It seems that dozens of people have got a degree about en:authority and even more on en:VIAF doing mass import of these datas or developing ultimate tools. At [handling for corporate GND type values] one can read sice 21 of November that the GND values listed at VIAF / linked on the primary level to VIAF are not valid for corporate, work and geographical type VIAF values.

At the page about new property proposals there have been contributions about quality, maintenance and tasks. The only qualifier available today (with exceptions of ekde, ĝis, and maybe some others) is source. This situation is like a bad joke because there are dozens of authority control numbers which are invalid / outdated / second or third choice values.
there is neither a confirmed, nor are there to dos (as update enwiki, frwiki etc.) nor to related to mainteriners as GND, VIAF (merge GND, pdersonalize GND, merge VIAF, etc. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding bibliographic data

Copied from Wikidata:Contact the development team/Archive/2013/10#Open Library alternative via WikiData

It would be great to have a nice interface for entering bibliographic information about authors, books and editions. [...] --DixonD (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On the long run there should be an even more simpler way to add bibliographic data. The way LibraryThing (Q742640) does it: Just look up a book at the library, click on "add this book" and the basic properties will be imported. For the beginning a bot could start with importing de:Vorlage:BibISBN with 1000+ reference works. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Missing props.js from user:MagnusManske could be a way. Right now is broken, though. Aubrey (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Periodicals task force

Hi, I have create a Wikidata:Periodicals task force to compliment the Books task force. I suspect a few of the lovely folk here will be interested, and will be able help the new task force get started. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! I'd prefer, however, to keep publication (Q732577) data together, no matter what subclass (book, periodical, digital publication etc.). Concrete examples, are always helpful! -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edition case study: Treasure Island

I've manually migrated the editions of Treasure Island from English Wikisource and I want to double check that I've got this right. I connected the disambiguation page Treasure Island to Treasure Island (Q185118). I created one new item (Q15628457 Q14944007) for the 1883 Cassell & Company edition. I created a second new item (Q15628463 Q14944010) for the 1911 Charles Scriber's Sons edition. For the time being, I connected the following versions to the Q185118 (the work/disambiguation item): La isla del tesoro (es, no apparent metadata or edition information), L’Île au trésor (fr, 1920 edition translated by Théo Varlet), Skattkammarön (sv, no apparent metadata or edition information) and Острів скарбів (uk, unknown edition, translated by Yuri Koretsky). I'm pretty sure those should technically have their own items and Q numbers as well but I'm not familiar enough with those languages, and not sure how best to go about it, to create them right now. Does this seem about right? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@JAn Dudík:! Looks like you have deleted these items! And it looks like they have to be restored. I guess we will have this problem as long as not all users become aware of how Wikisource will be related to Wikidata. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I merged them with items Treasure Island (Q14944010) and Treasure Island (1883, Cassell & Company) (Q14944007) which are about the same editions and are both linked from Treasure Island (Q185118). Where is problem? JAn Dudík (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see! Thanks! -- Lavallen (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added the current Q numbers above. I didn't notice the pre-existing items, sorry about that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Index page

We should have link to the Index: (like document file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) for a File:). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Something like a property transcription? --Aubrey (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen full work available at URL (P953)? We could use this. --Aubrey (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
full work available at URL (P953) datatype is URL, not Wikidata item (or some special datatype for link to page Index: namespace). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
We should decide once for all the relationships we want to structure:
What do I miss? --Aubrey (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

LibraryThing work identifiers

I have proposed a property to link Wikidata items on bibliographic works to the equivalent entry in LibraryThing (Q742640), e.g. Treasure Island (Q185118) => http://www.librarything.com/work/1812). Support is welcome. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that could be an interesting idea. Maybe be it would also be interesting to have a field in LibraryThing where the Q number could be specified. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Finn_Årup_Nielsen Dear Finn, Please look at the LibraryThing last 7 days helpers log or links. I added some hundreds there (the label is: Wikidata and type of link is : Wikipedia author page). See also [1]. Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add P941

Please add inspired by (P941) as a Work item property. It is similar to property based on (P144). --Accurimbono (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Please add a (book) example, if you know one. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino (Q1972808) that is inspired by (P941) The Adventures of Pinocchio (Q8065468) --Accurimbono (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino (Q1972808) is a good one! --Kolja21 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ;) --Accurimbono (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Author/Work/Editions/Translation case study: Pinocchio

I identified Pinocchio as a good item to apply the properties established by the Books task force, because:

  1. it is a work universally very well know
  2. translated in several languages all over the world
  3. entries for single characters are already available in Wikidata
  4. scanned and proofread text available in Wikisource, Commons, IA
  5. it has inspired several derived work like, among many others:
    1. the eastern A. Tolstoy version The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino (Q1972808)
    2. the Disney's 1940 animated movie Pinocchio (Q4341553)

Me and Aubrey worked on these items, please see below the result:

There are hundreds of other editions and translations in hundreds of language that can be added, please feel free to improve this case study adding other editions and missing properties where applicable.

I hope this example can help Wikisource users to understand and apply the difference between work item and edition item established by the BTF.

Regards, --Accurimbono (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added the first German translation Hippeltitsch's Abenteuer (Q15635805). --Kolja21 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Good, added in the list above. Thanks, --Accurimbono (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider Pinocchio a Wikidata project

Hoi, This is what Reasonator and consequently Wikidata "knows" when you search for Pinocchio. Given that Pinocchio is considered a perfect example of a great example for enrichment, I would like you to consider a few things:

  • make references to Pinocchio whereever his name is used
  • consider the references in other languages as well
  • consider the availability of illustrations (the "image" property) for all these items that are linked to Pinocchio
  • how would an "is a" "book" be best presented in the Reasonator. but also other relevant properties like "is a" "author".

Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi GerardM, imho for working with Reasonator we should
  1. define basic types of items like person, work, terms etc. (Unfortunately P107 is going to be deleted, but we need something similar to Template:Entities.) An author should be treated like other persons. (Reasonator work already pretty good for persons.) It would be to fragmented/complicated to differentiate between (for example) an author and an actor, since a person can have multiple jobs.
  2. make navigation templates for every type or subtype. For books it would be Template:Book properties. These templates should show the main properties that Reasonator could place on top. (This would also help to fill in missing information.)
I don't know how important books will be (compared with other items), but of cause it would be great, if Reasonator would differentiate between works and editions (for example using different background colors.) --Kolja21 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Background colours ... that is bike shedding.. not a great idea.. Let us first appreciate that EVERYTHING can have its own illustration Check out Pinocchio and the Disney character .. GerardM (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't we adopt some Schema.org "entities"? See here: http://schema.org/docs/schemas.html
Related to Reasonator, we should divide 2 differents properties for work and editions directly on Magnus Manske missingprops.js script (it is very useful). --Aubrey (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Things to consider:

It is a "human" not a "person".. for a person it is possible to trigger behaviour based on certain values.. For instance Reaonator behaves differently already when parents, children spouse are recognised. This could be done for "authors" as well. DO however consider a special type of author the "screenwriter". This is imho a mess. A screenwriter is the person who writes the script. Not the author of the book ot play a film is based upon. That should be something like "based upon" or whatever.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

I think it is time to start a book property that is not limited to a single information like "date of birth". See: Wikidata:Property proposal/References#Further reading. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasonator and editions of books

These are some of my thoughts on the information we should have in Wikidata..

  • When a book exists in Wikisource, it has an edition that is transcribed. It has several stages to go to until all the work is done. For all these stages there is a value indicating this. We could have this indicator in Wikidata as well. When the work is complete it would be feasible for Reasonator to have a "download" link. This will in essence be a link to Wikisource.
We discussed a bit about this, but I personally am not sure I would like the SAL level on Wikidata. It's a "working data" that is ever changing and it probably belongs to a structured metadata system on Wikisource, not Wikidata. @Tpt: was proposing a different system, maybe he can explain it. Moreover, he wrote a very good WMFlabs script to generate an EPUB directly from the ns0 Wikisource book. It's not perfect but it's really good. I think, among others, that the link to the script that generates the epub on the fly is the best link we can provide, as in this way we always offer an up to date ebook. --Aubrey (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have in the past argued for better advertisement for the finished product of Wikisource. I would only link to a download when the book is completely available and in good order. With the status displayed you ask people to collaborate.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When a book exists in Wikidata and when a freely downloadable edition exists somewhere, we could do the same.. think Internet Archive, Project Gutenburg there are many more.
See above. @ljon: told me many times that the Internet Archive office is in the same street of the WMF ones, and also @Micru: spoke with Brewester. We would like to go on and collaborate with them, especially within the meta:Wikisource Community User Group capacity. --Aubrey (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • An edition is in a particular language. It would make sense to have the information presented by Wikidata in that language by default. If you do not understand that information, the book is nothing for you.. Yes, it can have a toggle to go to the "user" language.
I don't understand this. What you mean. --Aubrey (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
When an edition is in Russian/Hindi/Japanese, the information is largely useful to people who know Russian/Hindi/Japanese. When information is shown in the language of the edition, people will go elsewhere when they do not know that language..
as far as I understand it, the wikidata structure with labels and descriptions in each language provides for the translation in each language, as the P357 (P357) links to the "real" title of the book in the language… is it right ? or did you mean "all" information about the book, including author, etc. - I agree here, for "books" - i.e. specific editions - the information should be provided in the language of the edition, not the language of the user… except for the link to the "work", so that the user can switch to other editions if s/he likes… --Hsarrazin (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is important to remember what the objective of the WMF is "share in the sum of all knowledge". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

PS A freely licensed edition goes for me a long way towards making a book notable. GerardM (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW: You've asked for more illustrations. English WP knows "fair use" for book covers (w:Template:Non-free book cover). Is something similar possible for WD? Open Library has thousands of book covers that we could use if the legal questions are resolved. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see that we here have any use for files who are uploaded locally, since any wp cannot access the files in enwp, no matter if they allow fair use or not. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A first challenge after Pinocchio: The Sonnets by William Shakespeare

I encourage Books task force to implement this: en:s:The Sonnets by William Shakespeare. An excellent example of a single book collecting many brief (but totally indipendent) works by an author; it suggests too one more property for literature works - the content of first verse - often used as the title/the identfier of sonnets and other poems.

Then I'll find a "example book" with many works by many authors :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

+1. I've added enWS to Shakespeare's sonnets (Q662550). --Kolja21 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously it's a difficult case. Shakespeare's sonnets (Q662550) entity is a book (a specific edition), this means that i.e. link to Commons is wrong, since that category refers to Shakespeare's sonnets in general, not to that book. I imagine that "work" level, in this case, should be splitted into single individual sonnets - any one of them linked with a large series of editions and translations. This is "the challenge". And it's not the really hard case: the really hard case is a book with different works by different authors. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The sonnets you linked are not proofread, they have not an edition... They should be provided with a scanned edition, M&S, proofread and then they can be added in the appropriate "edition item" here in Wikidata. --Accurimbono (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault. I though en:s:The Sonnets was a work page and (after proof reading) the edition will be moved to a separate page. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right! I didn't like to take another Italian work as an example.... here another similar case from a famous author (proofreading in progress): it:s:Indice:Le rime di M. Francesco Petrarca I.djvu.

This other one is a quality level 4 transctiption: it:s:Indice:Poesie (Carducci).djvu.

Please help me to find any other not-italian book with a famous collection of poems if you dislike these examples.

I'm not asking you to create a complete schema for these, or similar, complex collections; just to create the schema for the book and for a couple of works, so that other users can learn by example and by personal tries following a good example. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alex brollo, according to the FRDR model these examples are a "Manifestation" of a single "Work", that is the collection itself.
Let's see Poesie by Carducci: we will have an Edition item (something like "Poesie di Giosuè Carducci (Quinta Edizione), Zanichelli 1906"), that is the 5th edition of the Work item "Poesie di Giosuè Carducci".
The same for Petrarca.
The single compositions/sonnets/chapters will not have a Wikidata item.
For Carducci, the book you proposed as an example, collects several different works previously printed as separate books; these books (each of them) will have an Edition item and a related Work item, once a proofread scan will be available on Wikisource.
The different Work items (the several published as single books, and the one for the collection) can be connected by the property based on (P144). --Accurimbono (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a "subject" property?

Do we have a property along the lines of "subject", "topic", "about" or similar? I haven't found anything to match so far. I thought it would be necessary for reference works and non-fiction, to refer to the subject that the work is about. For instance, a biography of John Doe should link to the data item about John Doe. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Take main subject (P921). Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Poetic translation example

Q15692888 by Heinrich Heine (Q44403) / Q15692980 / Book of Songs (Q181911) has 7 translations in ru-ws:

I use based on (P144) instead of edition or translation of (P629), because a рoetic translations is more unrestricted creative process than prosaic one аnd the relation "edition of" is absolutely inappropriate here. But the relation "based on" too generic. We need more specific relation "translation of" for any translation type. Agree? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Or we need a "translation type" as qualifier for based on (P144) (values "prosaic translation", "poetic translation", "free poetic translation" еtс). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, this is a tough question. I would not use qualifiers like "prosaic translation", "poetic translation", "free poetic translation", it is a can of worms. "Based on", if the translation it is *really* poetic and free, is a good candidate, IMHO. I would also be flexible with the "edition of" property, it is a useful relationship between a work and edition and I would "lose" that only if it is necessary. You can maybe have them both? --Aubrey (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have used P144 in The bible of Peter Fjellstedt (Q15629339), since it's not a pure translation, but a bible with comments and Fjellstedt is the one making the comments. And it is "based on" an edition of the bible. The editions from 1890 are based upon a later bible in NT than the earlier. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This 7 translation is usual poetic translation (not free). If we will use edition or translation of (P629) for a translations too, it's needed to rename it to "edition or translation of", i guess. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As per Aubrey, I think "edition of" should always be used, for any kind of translation. It's not at all inappropriate; from an abstract point of view, it's perfectly correct to say "X is a Russian-language edition of the work Y". In general, I wouldn't look for a new property if an existing one can perfectly do; I think it's very important to keep things as simple as possible. Wikidata is already so complicated to understand and use, for humans and for software; having different properties for translations, and for the type of translations, would just add more complexity. And defining the exact type of a translation (literal, poetic, free poetic etc.) it's a very tricky task, where you cannot have precise answers; I think it better to leave it outside Wikidata's scope. I would use "based on" only when the content differs substantially from the original work (adaptations, parodies, works "inspired by"...). Candalua (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
To add complexity... Remember that we decide to use the duality "work"-"edition" collapsing what in the FRBR model are 2 different "levels" of the book. Please look at the simple recap I wrote on Wikidata:Books task force. We decide not to use the layers "expression" and "manifestation" as they are vague and blurred, but instead we collapsed them in the "edition". As far as we mantain this model, I think it is always good to use the property "Edition of", maybe with other properties. I would also suggest that this kind of nuances should be discussed in the Wikipedia page, in a discorsive sentence. Poetic, free, non poetic translation to me sound as judgemnts/opinions/views, not mere "facts" or "statements" that could go on Wikidata. My 2 cents. Aubrey (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata is perfectly fine with these kinds of statements, it just needs a source stating that judgments. TomT0m (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, i alter property edition or translation of (P629) name to clarify this issue. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Boo kitem deletion because the book is not Yet available and source deletion

I want to complain for this and "(Journal des suppressions de page) ; 01:54 . . Jdforrester (discuter | contributions) a supprimé la page Q15631417 ‎(Out of project scope: RfD: The first edition of this book, (no label) (Q15631435), has not been published yet. Amazon.com says it is planed for May 2014, but till then...)" that, without the creator (me) being even noticed. The book have been cited [:fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2014-01-17| in a well known french weekly information letter about Wikipedia], which often relays the well known Signpost. I find stupid the deletion of the item wrt. the cascade consequences, including the reference of a statement, and the fact I have to file this complaint. To Jdforrester please be careful in using your deletion right and respect the contributors. TomT0m (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Tom, I know deleting always hurt feelings, but the quality of WD is pretty low already and if we start using future publications as reliable sources, what's next? If a book is planed for May a lot of things can happen till then. Amazon is full of publications that never have been published or will be published one or two years later. Titles can change and of cause also content. - Mentioning a future book release in a newsletter is a different thing. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a very rare case, not a rule. Use common sense. the guy obviously already communicated about this work. In a few months if the book is not published we can probably remove it, or else it's unlikely that the item will be undeleted, and someone will redo the work, or not. As of now It's just one more unsourced claim, as I'm kind of likely to forget that later. All good reasons to keep the source and to apply stictly an interpretation of some rule. TomT0m (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC) PS plus the item, as the author is cited, gives informations to someone interested on the subject. As of now, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. And it's traceable. My feelings are fine now, this deletion is is still wrong, both in essence and the way it happened. TomT0m (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
A book that is not yet published is called "unpublished manuscript". There is nothing bad about it, but you can't add it as a book item. "In a few months if the book is not published we can probably remove it." This is not a scientific way of working and it does not work in other cases. You can't drive a car only because you know you will get your drivers license next month. If you have no reliable source for a statement you can't add this statement. There is no hurry. Why not wait until May? --Kolja21 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing scientific or not scientific here. The cost of deletion is higher than the cost of keeping, I just did this when I read the information, I might totally forget later, and it's very unlikely that the book won't be published. Plus as far as I know there is no peer review. Because the cost of making for an editor is higher of the cost of deleting for an admin, I'd like a solid reason. It's not the beginning of the problem to keep this statement, the important thing is that an editor can always check the source to verify, if it's only in a few months, at least its interest is gained. And the fact the publication date is in the future was not hidden: Last thing : an unpublished work might deserve an item, to be factual we just have to note the publication never happened. Think of the Terry Gilliam depicted in Lost in La Mancha (Q1757581). And, again, the tinyest thing to do is to inform the editors so they have a chance to explain. Yes, editors are importants, they might be pissed of if you delete something without warning, but you can't just say "that's business as usual, editors are always pissed". Because the last thing you want to do increase quality is to piss of editors uselessly. TomT0m (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata approach to books

Don't really know which terms to use here (I myself have confused thoughts on the matter in my native language :-P), but: using a wiki approach, wouldn't be best to regard all books as editions unless they can be viewed as works? I mean: for our descriptive purposes, the more metadata the better. This lead me to the opinion that a simple book, which has an articole on Wikipedia, should have all the properties stored here on WD. If the book is like the 90% of the books, it won't have many editions and translations, so it would be and edition here on WD. Instead, if it has them, we should differentiate different editions from the work itself. Does it make sense? --Aubrey (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/References_and_sources for a discussion. This model is more consistent, as there is no special cases and used by other databases. TomT0m (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Listed Invalid ISBN

Is there a qualifier that we can use for an invalid ISBN (en:Template:Listed Invalid ISBN)? --Kolja21 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Internacia mondliteraturo Q12349345

Hi! I worked many days on a (publisher) series Internacia Mondliteraturo (Q12349345) . Please verify the pages linked to this series. I did not add all identified OCLC numbers. I am happy about all comments. Is the series a member of itself?
FYI: at eo.Wikipedia there are two articles which should be merged.
various:

http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/SET=1/TTL=1/FAM?PPN=044348045

P.S. Please add genre (P136) wherever possible. "romano" in Esperanto would be "novel" while "novelo" means "novella".
לערי ריינהארט (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Reinhart, lese dir bitte erst mal die Empfehlungen auf Books task force durch. Deinen Angaben zufolge hat Raabe auf Esperanto geschrieben und mit Die schwarze Galeere für Goethe den Nachfolger zu Hermann und Dorothea. Das ist natürlich völliger Unsinn. Also bitte nicht alle Infos in ein item mischen! --Kolja21 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Die gesamte Reihe sind Übersetzungen. Manche OCLC's beziehen sich auf andere Ausgaben. Wo soll ich was lesen? לערי ריינהארט (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Genau daher sind alle deine Einträge falsch. Bitte korrigiere sie. Klicke oben auf "Projektseite" und lese die Grundlagen über den Unterschied zwischen einem Werk und einer Ausgabe (z.B. eine Übersetzung). --Kolja21 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should calm yourself. My understanding in English would allow me to continue the conversation in English. BTW I have read the whole Wikidata:WikiProject Books/2014 page and got the point about works versus editions. The series I created is from the beginning of last century, the correspondence to many original books might be difficult because they concern only some parts of the books where the items where published. As an example La submarinistoj by Novikov-Priboj, sometimes referred as Novikov-Priboi is the translation of Подводники by Новиков-Прибой. I was last four days in a hospital. How quick do you thing these pages should be fixed? לערי ריינהארט (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am completely happy if you stop mixing books with journals, editions, and articles. Take for example "Beletra Almanako N-ro 1 (Septembro 2007)" (Q12345459). You've also edited Beletra Almanako (Q12345576) but instead of linking work/edition or journal/article you've experimented with properties like contributor to the creative work or subject (P767). We have properties for edition numbers and, of cause, for dates. But you prefer to enter "N-ro 1 (Septembro 2007)" as a subtitle. It's all a big mess. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Please look at the cover page of BA1 eo:file:Beletra-almanako-ba-1-medium.jpg. The "journal" is book like. It contains both an ISSN and an ISBN eo:Kategorio:Beletra Almanako. I experienced many ways how librarians handle first and second lines. So it might be common praxis. Beside these there would be a problem anyway with Wikipedia and Wikidata page names /titles if the page title is too short. I am happy with any redraw for the the Beletra Almanako publisher series refered also at [2]. I neither own the series nor am I a professional librarian. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Of cause a series can be a journal and a book at the same time. But in both cases we need a connection between the main item "Beletra Almanako" and it's part. And of cause there are "many ways how librarians handle first and second lines". That is the reason why we have got a book task force. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Doubt about book/work

A book is not a work; a book is often a collection of different works. I read Help:Sources/Items_not_needing_sources and Wikidata:Books task force and I feel some degree of confusion about those two "things". Really, all suggestions and properties suggested for "book" are very appropriate for "works", nevertheless I think that "book" entity should be replaced by "work" everywhere.

I'm uploading hundred of books and works from Opal into IA, and differencies between books and works popped out fastly from source library itself. IMHO "book" is something much more strictly related to "edition" than to "work". I.e. consider one of last uploads: Teatro italiano - Tomo primo. Such a book contains four different works by four different authors. Obviously I'll create four work entities, using suggestions listed for book entities in Wikidata:Books task force; then I'll create an edition entity "Teatro italiano - Tomo primo (Vallarsi 1723)" cross-linking it with work items. Any one of work items will be cross-linked with different editions, some of which being probably a book containing only that work.

Obviously, I'm thinking about automated creation of book/work items and their properties, but the whole matter should be absolutely crystal-cleared. --Alex brollo (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand this example correctly, you will need nine data items overall: four work items, four edition items, and one book item. Each pair of work and edition items will link to each other with edition and edition or translation of. The edition items will be part of the book item. The book item will link back to the editions with consists of.
I think edition items should be instance of book (or other physical object) and work items should be instances of creative work and possibly the format, such as article or short story. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alex, our "book" is not a real book and if you look at the 200+ translations there are multiple meanings for this word. We use the item book (Q571) in the meaning of "work". (On the other side it's also a subclass of work. Other types of works are films, music albums etc.) If we are going into details - shortstories, books in two volumes etc. - it will be hell, but we have to start somewhere. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed property: copyright license

See Wikidata:Property_proposal/References#copyright_license. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably silly question

I've been wondering this for a while but never actually got around to ask - and I'm fairly sure it's a silly question that has been discussed before. But I'll ask anyway in case someone can post a link to the previous discussion. When I first heard about wikidata my first thought was that it could eventually be used to have a record for every book published (especially those with an ISBN) which could then be used as a repository for the references/footnotes in wikipedia articles. That way the wikipedia editor adding in a new footnote wouldn't have to type in all the metadata for every book they cite in each and every Wikipedia article. Instead, tjhe editor could simply insert the ISBN and appropriate page number and that would be it! Wikidata would then provide the system with all the relevant metadata to make a fully formatted footnote. This would greatly simplify the task of Wikipedia editors putting in footnotes, but also ensure consistency of the way they are produced across the entire encyclopedia.

Is that the plan? is that even possible? I imaging that starting by importing CCO bibliographic datasets that have been published be several major libraries would be a good start, and checking which ISBNs are already being cited a lot across Wikipedia articles. Wittylama (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wittylama: Yes, it has been discussed many times before and the consensus is: Wikipedia sources will be supported, but we will only import the ones that are used (but not all metadata from all works). That being said, I'm sure there will be tools to import metadata from external sources as soon as they are requested.--Micru (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just searching this discussion page to see if someone had already brought it about, and you have put into words exactly what I had in mind, Wittylama. Why Wikipedia can't do it yet? (I mean, to use Wikidata as literature repository for its articles). Are there any technical limitations yet to be overcome? Micru, could you point out where those discussions have taken place? The key question here is not how to import data to Wikidata (from external sources), but how to export it from Wikidata to Wikipedia referencing system. Even if we had to feed Wikidata manually, that would be a hundred times better than the present system, by which the literature data is of use only in the Wikipedia article within which it's inserted. Max51 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Max51: I think this is the discussion you are looking for: Supporting Wikipedia sources. Major blockers are Bugzilla47930 • 52385, but there might be others, like UI support.--Micru (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mapping external ontologies

Notified participants to Books task force: Following-up with the discussion started above by Alex Brollo and after finding myself similar problems (works that consist of other works), what do you think of mapping an external ontology that covers such cases? In the project chat FaBiO was suggested and after reading it I think it could be a good choice.--Micru (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure Wikidata can be mapped to external ontologies but I doubt that the reverse (changing Wikidata to map an external ontology) is a solution. We should better talk about what parts of existing ontologies are missing in Wikidata or could be modified in Wikidata instead of looking for a one-word-answer such as "FaBiO". -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss: I was mentioning FaBiO as a starting point, not as an answer for everything. If there are other interesting ontologies we should check what they cover and see if we could convey something similar in our own way, or perhaps we need to add new elements. When we started we did the same with properties, sometimes there is not a 1:1 correspondence, but most of the time we have another way (or even a better way) to describe the same concept.--Micru (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We can do many external mappings. So I think that FaBio is a ontology to map, plus whatever other external entities ontologies there are. Maximilianklein (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Instance of / subclass of

Looking in retrospect, I think it was a mistake to consider "instance of:book" and "instance of:edition". It should be "subclass of:book" (or "work") and "subclass of:edition", as these items don't refer to specific instances. Should we correct it?--Micru (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not so much if one consider them abstract entities. Anyhow, I think it is clear enough as instance.--Micru (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been clarified at: Wikidata:Project_chat#Issue_with_.22instance_of.22_for_texts. There is indeed an important difference, and "work items" cannot be instances of anything, just subclass.--Micru (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How to tag a yearbook?

Hi,
I'm quite new to the topic of "how to tag a book in Wikidata", I need your help on how to tag a certain book. From the description page of this task force I'm not sure what properties I should set. Basically I want to create an item for this book http://books.google.de/books?ei=x8WvU-DUNIWs0QW1tYH4AQ&hl=de&id=0oMfAQAAIAAJ&dq=januar+20+1861+Ein%C3%B6dshofer&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=20.+1861+Ein%C3%B6dshofer as I want to use it in a reference in Wikidata. I started by creating this item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17292611, but now, where do I add the number entry from Bibtex (" number={Bd. 53}") to that item? This book is a yearbook, so that's the 53th edition(?) of the yearbook. --Bthfan (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Bthfan, an item representing a volume of a work can be "part of" an item representing the complete work, an item representing a volume of an edition can be "part of" an item representing the complete edition, and also both can happen at the same time. In the last case you would need four items, but since AFAIK this work only has 1 edition, I would go for a simplified version with just 2 items. Since Deutsches Bühnen-Jahrbuch 1942 (Q17292611) represents both a a volume of the edition and a volume of the work, and Deutsches Bühnen-Jahrbuch (Q17294622) represents both the complete work with all volumes and the complete edition with all volumes, I would link both items with the pair has part (P527) / part of (P361) in addition to the pair has edition or translation (P747) / edition or translation of (P629). However I would also add to Deutsches Bühnen-Jahrbuch (Q17294622) "instance of:creative work" and to Deutsches Bühnen-Jahrbuch 1942 (Q17292611) "instance of:volume" in order to reduce the ambiguity. There are no clear rules for this, we could agree on some.--Micru (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Instance of books

Sorry to be annoying with that, but we need to solve it, so I made new thread at the Project Chat. (I can't notify through {{Ping project}} because the list of participans would have to be at Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Participants, not Wikidata:Books task force/Participants)--Zolo (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zolo,
Should we change the page name or couldn't we improve the template instead ? (I'm not sure which one is easier/better).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Changing the name of the page would give more consistency acorss Wikidata, so I guess it should be favored, but it is currently being done (see Wikidata:Project_chat#Help_with_moving_task_forces_to_WikiProjects :). --Zolo (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo: : ok, thanks for the link. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Buch vs. literarisches Werk

Magnus' Bot hat Bücher als "literarisches Werk" eingetragen. Er bietet an: "Ich kann alle instance of (P31):literary work (Q7725634) in book (Q571) umwandeln (aber dann wirklich alle, nicht nur die von meinem Bot!), wenn das hilfreich ist." Ich gebe die Frage gerne weiter: Ist die Umwandlung hilfreich oder schaffen wir damit nur neue Probleme (da eventl. nicht alle lit. Werke "Bücher" im Sinne von WD sind? --Kolja21 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kolja21:Eigentlich sollte er die instance of (P31):literary work (Q7725634) in subclass of (P279):literary work (Q7725634) umwalden. Darüber wird es hier im Moment geredet: Wikidata:Project_chat#Issue_with_.22instance_of.22_for_texts.--Micru (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Property « published in »

Hi,

Maybe I'm missing something be there us apparently no « published in » property. So I proposed one : Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work (if someone could improve the description, thank you).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

published in (P1433) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Two new properties proposal

Hello, I made a proposal for two new properties that may interest people around there: describes the fictional universe and described in the work. -Ash Crow (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WEF Editors

I just added to page a notice about one "old" remote, interactive editor for wikidata Person elements, and for two new editors for Work and Edition elements. They have been written by Vlsergey, the latter after a request by it.wikisource; I'm sure that Vlsergey will appreciate any comment and suggestion by you. --Alex brollo (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The best place for "work" pages into wikisource

Wikisource projects usually have a nsAuthor (those pages can be linked with a wikidata person element, and edited by WEF_PersonEditor tool); have obvioulsy a ns0 for edition elements; but there's no nsWork, to link work elements.

Itwikisource temporary solution hase been, to identify a "pseudo-namespace" Opera: (simply a ns0 page) whose subpages are works and can be linked with related work element into wikidata. So, Tommaso Moro is linked with s:it:Opera:Tommaso Moro and can be edited from that wikisource page using WEF_WorkEditor, while Tragedie di Silvio Pellico (Le Monnier, 1883) is one of edition elements related with Tommaso Moro, it is linked with s:it:Tragedie_(Pellico) and can be edited fron that page using WEF_EditionEditor.

Not to simple to explain, but not so difficult, and perfectly aligning wikisource and wikidata. Please leave your comments! --Alex brollo (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Need for inverse of Property:P1433

While dragging into author/works/editions relationships using, as a model, the Italian author Silvio Pellico, his works and their editions, I met his tragedies, and the edition that collects many of them: Tragedie di Silvio Pellico (Le Monnier, 1883). I created items for tragedies as individual works and at first I linked them with main edition; but by now I'm considering to add one edition item for any tragedy, linking them to main collection by a Published in property. So, I'm going to create wikidata elements that can be linked with individual tragedies into wikisource.

But I feel the need of an inverse property, to be used into edition element that collects individual tragedies; something like "contains" or "collects". Am I going wrong somehow? While waiting for your comments. I'm going to create editions items for individual tragedies, and to test WEF EditionEditor by Vlsergey on them. :-) --Alex (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I use has part (P527) for this case, do we really need something more precise? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Is this use generalised/recommended? Can it be used to fill the empty cell "Inverse" into collection of works table? That empty cell has been confusing for me. --Alex (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Same question on Property talk:P1433. has part (P527) is the inverse part of part of (P361). The inverse part of published in (P1433) is missing. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel the need of other stated "inverse relations" too, I just found that no "inverse relation" is listed for author (P50) into Work items table, nor into Edition items table (consider that there are sound reasons to select two different inverse properties; I need different properties to get two separate lists of "works" and "editions" by #property tag when visualizing a wikisource Author: page). So, I encourage users who are managing works and editions tables to fill any lacking "Inverse" relation as soon as possible. --Alex (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Author (P50) <-> work (P800) are not "real" inverse properties. "Work" should only be used for the main works of an author and not (single) editions or articles. Beside: a work can have a second author, illustrator, translator etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I hope, that it's crear in my mind that there are two main, many-to-many relations among three kinds of items: author <=> work; work <=> edition; they could be considered sufficient, but wikibooks task force added another one, since author has been added to edition items as a property: author <=> edition. I worry about the latter one, since it's pleonastic - and database design runs with few issues only when any pleonastic feature is carefully removed. Now, these relations are the core of "books database" and are really key features; IMHO they need to be stated with crystal-clear directives, and the first step is, to state one, and only one, "name" (property) for any of them; so I need six properties (direct and inverse) to link in a systematic and coherent way authors, works and editions, and it would be great that any contributor would use the same. ;-) --Alex (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If I cite a book I only need an edition item. In a professional bibliographic database a user would add both items: edition and work. Then we could link - in most cases - the author only at the work item. But even then we still have editors, translators and illustrators that differ. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

anthology and collection of poems (not sure of the term in English)

Hello,

I'm a wikisourcian (fr), and very much interested in Book project. I'm trying to at least assign instance of (P31) right to the many items from fr:wikisource imported here :) - so that they do not appear recurrently in "The Game" (which is the case for now).

For collection of verses or poems, we have anthology (Q105420), which is great for books like Le Parnasse contemporain (1866) (Q17356468), which presents poems from various artists, and the compilation is made by someone else.

but for collections of poems made by the author himself, like Les Fleurs du mal (Q216578), titled and arranged at his/her will, I feel the concept is not right… : in French, we distinguish "Recueil de poèmes" et "Anthologie", by the fact that the first one is arranged by the author of the texts, and the second one is either retrospective or contains more that one author.

is there an item I could use for better description, or should I use anthology (Q105420) in both cases ?

Also, for internal parts or sections of such "collection of poems", like, in Les Fleurs du mal (Q216578), Q3493664, which instance of (P31) should be used ? is part of (P361) enough ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Welcome! I have created group of works (Q17489659) which is a more generic item than anthology (it is modelled after group of humans (Q16334295)). I guess you could create more specific items like "group of poems" or "group of musical compositions" if needed. Hope it helps!--Micru (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru:, Thanks for your help…
right now, I'm not familiar enough with the project to create items for such specific needs without asking if there already exist something ;) - I intend to get more familiar, though, now that many items frow wikisource have been added…
also, I did not completely understand the discussion about works and editions - both concepts are clear to me, as a librarian, but I did not find the chosen solution in discussions : do we create both for each representation of a work, or do we only create edition items when there are more editions than can be efficiently managed through qualifiers ? - both choices would be ok with me, with a slight preference for the second (simpler) one…
for instance : for poem (Q5185279), like Q17356046, which is now linked to fr:Le Parnasse contemporain/1866/Recueillement, on wikisource (fr), we have more than one edition, and they are grouped on page fr:Recueillement. (The work is still ongoing on wikisource… :D)
if the item is considered a work, I think it would be better to link it on fr:Recueillement, while if it is considered an edition, a work item should be created… so, how should I do it ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
For your last question, you shouldn't use part of (P361) but published in (P1433). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thanx Harmonia Amanda :I effectively use published in (P1433), which seems much better :) many items were created, using part of (P361), before july… I am in the process of cleaning, using the part of (P361) to find the ones that have to be modifed :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I just created poetry collection (Q17517327)… thanks for your inputs ) - I put it as subclass of (P279) of group of works (Q17489659) just like anthology (Q105420) and added the category Category:Poetry collections (Q8767511) - not sure of the use of categories for items, though… --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

and also short story collection (Q17517383), for the same purpose with short stories… --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
and also collection of articles (Q17518557) for the articles from Revue des Deux Mondes (Q1569226) among others… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: this tree starts to looks good :) --Micru (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
yes, and there are some other items to link :) already existing... I just connected complete works (Q1978454) and book series (Q277759) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: There is also short story collection (Q1279564), can I redirect your item to it? Danneks (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, short story collection (Q17517383) is effectively the same thing as short story collection (Q1279564), which I had not found :) Thanks Danneks --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Using "instance of:written work" instead of "instance of:book"

After many and long discussions I think it would be better to use "instance of:text (Q17481121)" to signal our "work items" (now we are using "instance of:book"). Any comment about this?

"Instance of:book" would be used for specific instances when the item in question can be considered a physical book and it could have subclasses to specify exactly the exact class of book if needed.--Micru (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  Support using "instance of:text (Q17481121)" is much better, since the "work" item can include editions that are not book (Q571), for instance, when published in a periodical - see Q17496409
on the other hand, is it better to use instance of (P31):text (Q17481121) + genre (P136):novel (Q8261) or just instance of (P31):novel (Q8261), since novel (Q8261) is a sub-class of text (Q17481121) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  Oppose Major works from the Iliad and the Odyssey till Hamlet are oral works. And why exclude audio books? On the other hand "written work" would include emails, treaties and unpublished works. We should keep the term "book" and define it as it is useful for our need. Just think about a name like "WikiProject written work" and you see this kind of renaming doesn't solve any problems, but creates more. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
so why not rephrase text (Q17481121) as "textual work", which may include oral works… a work can be unpublished, but a book is an object, and necessarily published… - it is the publication (the expression) of a work, by definition… - a manuscript is not a book either, but it is a texual work, or a written work - :)
IMHO, the "text" name is the best solution to take into account all that is published in wikisource, contrary to "book", which excludes manuscripts, audiobooks, treaties (we have some of them), text of speaches, articles from periodicals… all of these are NOT books, but are qualified to be published on wikisource, and so, should be qualified on wikidata… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kolja21: You still can mark the Iliad and others as "instance of:creative work". Or if you you want to be more specific, you can consider them "instance of:oral work" with start/end date for the period that they were considered mainly oral works and "instance of:written work" when their transmission media was mainly written. --Micru (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
and in no case Une lettre de J. M. G. Le Clézio (Q7884119) can be considered a book… an article, an essay, a text… but certainly not a book… it's been published in the "Revue des Deux Mondes"… even if it had been published later as a book, it is not a book… 
but, I also think that text should only be the next-to-top class (under work) for those items, which should be categorized directly as articles or essays, not as genre (P136) but as instance of (P31), since they are sub-classes… always categorize at the deeper level possible… seems the best, no ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Une lettre de J. M. G. Le Clézio (Q7884119) is a typical WD item: it's whatever bots have picked up in Wikipedia. So it's a work, a book and an article at the same time. (Cute is the use of date of birth (P569) for an essay.) We need terms like "book" and "article" because they are easy to understand and to translate. A "text": DNA. A "created work": The world (at least in the view of the majority of the people). Instead of "book" we could write "Media/book in the sence of library catalogs" and then start to discuss what's the meaning of media etc. etc. So let's work and not hinder ourselves. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO "works" can be instances of anything but please not of book: aren't books that horrible objects that need a complex splitting into "work" and "edition" elements? IMHO the best would be simply that a work could be instance of:work, and that any other specification would be assigned to other properties. I'd like to build a query "list all works owned by it.source" covering any work into itsource - novels, poems, dramas, songs, laws; written, oral, etched in stone .... --Alex (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
When we talk about "written work" imho we first need to define what types of works we need: Written, oral, musical, performing, printed? I like to term "work" (as opposite to "edition") but we can combine dozens of words with it. What is a the printed score of a symphony (sheet music)? A book but also a written work? Maybe we have to give up on the idea of one perfect term and use multiple descriptors. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
A "written work" or "textual work" is something that was created to be mainly transmitted as text (although it can be represented in other ways). A "musical work" is something that was created to be mainly transmitted in musical form, and so on. Of course they are all subclasses of "creative work", so I agree that it is possible to use that one when it is not clear, or use multiple descriptors when we want to convey different aspects.--Micru (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What about Wordless novels :-) ? --Alex (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
those should be "graphic work" :) - calling them a "novel" is marketing, not actually "novels" ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource links and work chapters

Hello,

many links have been added from wikisource, some of them are subpages, and some of those subpages are just chapters from the main text, allowing an easy navigation through it, or due to a publication in serials, like many of Revue des Deux Mondes (Q1569226) texts.

generally, those chapters have no interest by themselves (in litterary works, at least - it's different for scientific works).

should those items be kept and marked as chapter (Q1980247) or should they be discarded (after manual checking - AFAIK, there is no way to machine-recognize a simple chapter from a chapter that can be read individually - we are still trying to sort them on wikisource) ?

how to mark them for removal ? should the link be removed ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that such items should be deleted. Tpt (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
When they have been published at different dates, I think using different items is the best way to document the publication date, magazine, etc. When all chapters were published at the same time, I would still think that distinct items can be useful as it seems like the easiest solution to link different editions/translations of the same chapter, and also to add chapter-specific about the topic of the chapter.
Anyhow, it should be possible to find most of these items autamatically using the wikisource link structure at a "/" indicates a subpage, which appears to generally mean a chapter. --Zolo (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: Looking at your examples:
Jean de La Roche/01 = Q17359048
Revue des Deux Mondes, 2e période, tome 23, 1859 (pp. 942-969).
Jean de La Roche/02 = Q17359049
Revue des Deux Mondes, 2e période, tome 24, 1859 (pp. 5-42).
The text has been published in different volumes, so both Wikisource pages need a separate item. In other words: The items are not only chapters of a book, they are also independent articles of a journal. You can connect them through follows (P155), followed by (P156). I've add some info but there is still a lot of work to be done. (We should take this case to our list of examples.) --Kolja21 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

work published under pseudonym

Before the embers (Q17356113) : Is this the right way to indicate that the work was published under pseudonym for the publication ? if not, which way is right ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We have no solution for this case yet. Imho your way is the best possible for the moment. We need a property like "name of the author as printed in the book" similar to P357 (P357). --Kolja21 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource index pages and manifestations

According to FRBR, there are four levels that fit very well with our information structure:

  • Work: corresponds with our "work items"
  • Expression: corresponds with our "edition items"
  • Manifestation: corresponds with the "Index:" pages on wikisource
  • Item: corresponds with the scanned file on Commons

At the moment we are only using two layers on Wikidata and I'm wondering if we should also have a separate third layer for manifestations that would be linked to the "Index:" page on Wikisource. The information that could be stored in this level would be how many expressions contains, proofread level of the whole manifestation, etc.

The idea is to have a flexible structure that we can use as much (or as little) as possible depending on each case, for instance if there is no "index" page on wikisource or a file on commons, there would be only two levels used as now. What do you think?--Micru (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

YES! I like a lot "manifestations" level; Index and Page namespaces are IMHO much more than "editing tools", I see them as "NPOV digital version" of a book. Perhaps "expression" level could be wrapped into the "image" property of manifestation-index level.
I don't know in detail de.wikisource approach to transcription - can it fit with this schema? And - what's your idea about a unique "instance of:" value for those three or four layers of our wikisource texts? A unique value for any level would be useful to write simple, complete queries. --Alex (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand correctly, I'm here just to remind you that FRBR is a powerful tool, but it's not a "silver bullet", and expert and professional librarians could use it to catalog very differently the same books...
FRBR (and, in general cataloging) depends on purposes, scopes and context. A bibliographical record of a book in an archive would be very different from the bibliographical record of the same book in a library. There is no such a thing as the EXACT WAY to catalog a book.
So, what we need now, as Micru says, is a set of guidelines to fit our purposes. I can agree with the overall structure, because it could work, but remember that the more levels we have the more complex it would be for the users to add the right properties.
Micru, could you do a draft 4-columns table with the properties for every level? So we can discuss the details. --Aubrey (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: Yes, I know that dewikisource has sometimes a strange approach, that is why I thought of a "scanned pages category" property for those cases. I don't think we should use a controlled vocabulary for instances, just any item from a defined tree of classes.
@Micru: I agree fully, but: presently there's something like a "self-assignment of parent classes" so that any parent class can be used in queries? We did a hard work into it.wikisource about categories to get this result: if you categorize a text as "sonnet", template engine assing the item too to "poems" and to "literature", so that the item is listed too in parent categories, without any need to browse the category tree. Is here something link this running by now? Presently I'm completely ignorant about query engine of wikidata. --Alex (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: No, such feature doesn't exist in wikidata presently (not even simple queries :)), but a possible workaround could be to put that logic in the lua module. In the end there might not be that many options.--Micru (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Aubrey: Here you go: FRBR on Wikidata. Marked in blue are the properties that we are missing. "Printed as" is thought of as a qualifier of other properties like "author", or it can be used to qualify "position in file" ("position in file"+"Printed as" is what now are storing as text in index pages). "Born-digital file" could be used when we do not need to proofread the text, but still want to link it. It is not a strict separation of levels (ISBN and "number of pages" could go on the manifestation), but rather some hands-on approach keeping our current structure and restricting "manifestation" to "index pages" and "item" to "file in Commons".--Micru (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good job. We should ping also @Kcoyle:. Aubrey (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Authors and properties

Hello,

as for indicating authors, is it really necessary to have many properties ? Would not it be better to use only one, author (P50) with qualifiers, regarding the "role" : translator, illustrator, editor, which could allow for many more roles : preface, foreword, publication director, etc. ?

it would be interesting, also to have a qualifier to indicate the "signature", i.e. the name used on the book or the article (anonym, pseudonym, the old "as written on the title page" value, used by cataloguers ;) - this way, like on wikisource, it would be possible to display the name used in the book/edition, while linking to the real author…

what do you think ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Yes, of course you can qualify author (P50) or contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) with their role. The necessary property has been proposed already and just needs your support :)
Thanks, I did not see the proposal, as I searched in person's properties, not in general ;)
I think we need two properties: "printed as" and "type of name used", you can just fill out the property proposal ;) --Micru (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
yes, I also think we need 2 properties, one to give the name as indicated on the book or article, and the other to indicate if necessary the "type of name" (initials could be useful too, and "marriage name" for women...)
Oh, and for the "signature" you could use something like "position in file (number)" with qualifier "depicts:signature".--Micru (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
sorry, I don't understand what you mean here :S - could you be more explicit, or give an example, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: Imagine that you have a file that contains a signature on page 12. To signal it, you could model it as follows:
⟨ scan file with the signature ⟩ position in file search ⟨ 12 ⟩
depicts (P180)   ⟨ signature (Q188675)      ⟩
--Micru (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
the link does not work for me… but I guess you mean "autographed signature" ?
I only meant "name printed on the title page" :) - giving acces to a scan filed for that seems a bit… too much :D --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: Sorry, I misunderstood your message! :D But yes a property for indicating how something was printed is necessary, proposed here: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#printed_as.--Micru (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

editions & reprints

how to deal with wikisource books that use reprints as FS, like Le Parnasse contemporain (1876) (Q17356470)

fr.wikisource edited it with a Slatkine reprint FS : since the reprint is strictly identical to the original (except for the title page), is it possible to use publisher (P123) with the original publisher (Alphonse Lemerre), or do I need to specify that it is a reprint by Slatkine, 1971, and how ? - is what I did OK ? - I feel there should be the possibility to mark it as "reprint", not "reedition" :S --Hsarrazin (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The reprint is a manifestation, and you can have more than one per edition. Look at the suggested structure.--Micru (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

posthumous works (or posthumous publication of unpublished works)

hello,

Is there a way to indicate that a book is posthumous (i.e. first published after the death of the author) ? the date of publication cannot be enough, since it is not necessarily the date of first publication… --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: What about  ? --Micru (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: is it alright for an item to have 2 instance of (P31) values ?
also, posthumous work (Q17518461) is a legal concept —considering the linked wp page— , regarding the intellectual property… I was looking for a more casual information… ;)
as regards intellectual property, do you think a property indicating the international status of Q17495578 (for all authors dead >100 years ago + other informations, when necessary, could be interesting, or would it be too difficult to manage (to be used only on authors and works where there is no hesitation on the status…) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: AFAIK there are no restrictions about how many "instance of" statements you can add. Of course it is better not to abuse the property, but in this case it seems quite simple.
posthumous work (Q17518461) is not strictly a legal concept, it just means that a creative work was published after the creator died. There is no linked wp page.
You are welcome to add copyright license (P275) if you feel like, I don't think there is any recommendation on the topic, but you can ask at Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts.--Micru (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
oups, sorry… too many links in too many windows : copyright of posthumous works (Q3594147) is a legal concept - I had a wrong synonymy with posthumous work (Q17518461) that's why I wondered :D
thanx for the copyright license (P275) property, though the label/description does not really fit authors… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed update works-editions

See here: Help_talk:Sources#Proposed_update_works-editions.--Micru (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Short essay explaining the difficulties of modeling anything: Wikidata:Lounge/Growing items.--Micru (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

movements and other organization appartenance - which property ?

Hello, while completing wikisource Authors items, I'm confronted with many various little problems ?

many of them could be solved using member of (P463), but I'm not sure it is the right/valid solution, since membership can be very vague :

thanks for your help :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For artistic or literary movements I would use movement (P135). --Kolja21 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
oh, thanks Kolja21, I had not found it — that's the problem when you don't know what to look for :D --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

date of first publication ?

for texts, the date of first publication is very important, as it generally triggers the copyright/author's right computation, in many countries, as well as it is important for the text's history.

is there a way to indicate the publication date (P577) is the first one ?

for some works, I used published in (P1433) + publication date (P577) as qualifier (or publisher (P123) + publication date (P577) as qualifier) for each known publication, + publication date (P577) as property for the first known publication - is it right ? - is it explicit enough ? or should I use a qualifier to be more precise ? Thanks for your help. --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In the list "Work item properties" we've got inception (P571) but it's ambiguous: It could be the year a work has been written or the year it was first published. Additionally, for the edition, there is the basic info edition number (P393) (1st ed. = year of first publication). What is missing is a property for the copyright year. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • yes, I use inception (P571) for the date the text was written, at least, when it is known… it certainly cannot be used for posthumous works ;)
  • edition number (P393) : it's not useful for prepublication in periodicals, generally in separate parts (poems, short stories, etc. , see what I mean Q3226125 :)
  • as for the Year of copyright, it can be used on modern editions, where copyright has been used, but not for older ones… and copyright is a different concept according to the edition country - generally legal - my thought was more factual - moreover, I think the copyright would apply to books, I'm not so sure for works :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's getting complicated ;) Do we need a new item like short story collection (Q17517383)? Why not use one of the many anthology items like anthology (Q105420) / edited volume (Q1711593) / serial (Q2217301) / Sammelband (Q4230425) + genre: short story? Starting a new anthology item like group of literary works (Q17518870) motivates other users to create "group of non-literary works", "group of scientific works", "group of works translated by" etc. We had musical and literary work. Now we have the new "art form" posthumous. Who writes a posthumous work (Q17518461)? A posthumer? Please remember that several billion people do not speak English. Keep it simple. Otherwise every WD editor will use his own way to describe an item. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21: TBH I would have preferred not to create that posth. item, but I am missing the property "has quality" (proposed) or a similar one. Otherwise how to say that something "has quality <posthumous>? ;) It comes quite often in musical works, and sometimes it gets complicated... --Micru (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Imho "posthumous" is for WD redundant. If an author has died in the year 1903 a work first published 1904 is posthumous. We should try to create as much information as possible automatically. (Fine adjustment may follow later.) --Kolja21 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21: posthumous work is important for works that were not published during the author's life... it has many consequences, on the work itself, and also on the legal pov… :) - as for how to express it? - maybe a specific item is too much - perhaps a qualifier in the publication date (P577) ?
as for short story collection (Q17517383), it is not an anthology… unless there are some translation problems, this item is conceived and published by the author himself, while the anthology is compiled by someone else, who also gets author's rights ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: Collection of short stories = collection + short story. Otherwise there is no reason why we shouldn't add "Collection of poems", "Collection of dramas" and a few hundred other items. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
no Kolja21, I can't agree with you - I think there is a problem of translation here (I think in French, not in English)... a "Recueil de nouvelles" is a very specific kind of book, while "collection" can be nearly anything... this is not satisfactory to describe books... - you can not use it, but it is needed and useful… --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Every book is specific. For the description of an item there is the field "description" (Help:Description). You are saying that a "recueil de nouvelles" is conceived and published by the author himself? Then there is no English or German translation of that term. A "collection of short stories" can be (in compliance with the copyright) edited, conceived and published by any person. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
i think one can use publication date (P577) on FRBR work to indicate date of first publishing. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

2.4 million images released from Internet Archive books

The Internet Archive has just released 2.4 million images to Flickr, extracted from scanned pre-1923 books.

I have started a project on Commons to explore and understand the set, and start uploading relevant batches, at

c:Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection

with the initial thought of proceeding along the lines of the existing

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection

But it could use some advice at this, the blank page stage, from people who know about book resources as they exist already across the Wikis.

For example, how much is there already from the IA that's been uploaded to Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata ? And how is it being held / described ? Are there already quite good automated approaches for extracting metadata from the IA and/or Open Library ?

Initially, I've been thinking to use quite a simple link-back template on book-image category pages, along the lines of eg c:Template:BL1million bookcat as used at the top of this category; but I'd welcome advice on this.

The advantage of such a simple template is that it is easy for users to apply by hand, with very little input being required, until such a time as templates can be created that can automatically draw all relevant information from Wikidata (which probably requires Phase 3 on Commons). But if people think the project should be being more ambitious, and especially if there are already any easy ways to draw the relevant data automatically from IA to fill out more advanced templates with minimum effort, that would be very valuable to know.

Please do join in, and sign up on the Commons page now if you would be interested. Jheald (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Vlsergey books-related editors and first update of his Edition editor

As some of you know, Vlsergey wrote AJAX-API editors that allow wikidata elements (person, work, edition) editing into a form from any project. Into it.wikisource those editors have been installed (it's very simple!) as gadgets.

Some days ago, Edition editor has been updated adding fields for P1433, P155 and P156, (published in, following and followed by) grouped together into main folder, and they are very useful dealing with editions that are collections of works. Any of you is using them?--Alex (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: book as a temporary, mixed element

I found very difficult to explain into itwikipedia the double character of a book, that needs at least two different elements (work and edition) to solve the possible many-to-many relationship between the content and the container. So, almost any link from works into itwikipedia points to elements that are a mixture of works and editions, and they are linked to wikisource pages, that are editions.

Tha majority of books into wikisource are really works with one edition only, so in this simple case there's a one-to-one relatioship between work and edition and a mixed element could be appropriately, temporarily linked both to a work wikipedia page and a edition wikisource page; as soon as the relationship grows into a many-to-many one, such mixed, composite elements shlould be splitted into separate work and edition elements, and links should be fixed.

My proposal is simply, to assign to those composite elements the property instance of -> book, with a clear statement that this entity must be used only in the special case of one work-one edition.

There's another issue: how to identify clearly from label + description works, editions and books, since the best label for all from them is the work title. I feel myself comfortable using the title as label, and "work by author" as standard description (i.e. Hamlet -> drama by William Shakespeare) for work elements, and title as label, and author, editor, city, year as description for editions, so that I can see just from label + description, while searching, if an element is a work of an edition; are you using some different convention? --Alex (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bible manuscripts

There are a lot of different items about different bible manuskripts. My estimation is, there are more than 200 items of this kind. Some examples: Minuscule 69 (Q1128804), Codex Bezae (Q818305), Isaiah scroll (Q1824743), Codex Gigas (Q212180), Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (Q1165472).

  • Which are the recommended properties for manuskripts in general?
  • Which are the recommended properties for bile manuscripts in what language ever?

Thanks--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88: instance of (P31):manuscript (Q87167) or subclass thereof obviously, holding library (or museum etc.) and shelfmark should, in my opinion at least, be the basic elements for all manuscripts. I've tentatively used collection (P195) and inventory number (P217) for those, but I am not quite sure whether they are ideal for this. If the manuscript has been digitized we should provide a link to the digital reproduction as well. I guess there are about 1000 manuscript items currently on wikidata (many of them still without any properties). As for bible manuscripts, I guess we should give people a rough estimate what part(s) of the text they can expect to find in it, in what language, the approximate age of the manuscript and a hint to where it was written. This applies to other manuscripts as well, but as many of these data are often just hypotheses (and subject to change), I think we should start with the basics mentioned above. --HHill (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK I try a list:

However therere are some important aspects still missing: We need to link to the work item somehow

  • pXXX manuskript of Bible (Q1845) New Testament (Q18813), Pauline epistles (Q265283), Torah (Q34990), biblical books, Nibelungenlied (Q131554) or whatever
  • Manuscripts belong sometimes to a stemma. So a manuskript can have a mother, sister or children. However p25, p9 or p40 don´t fit here.
  • we need a property to add the language of the manuskript
  • we need a property to add the century or the year in which the manuscript is made
  • we need a property to add the name of the writer, which is sometimes known, not the name of the author, who can be someone and somewhere else in time and space.
  • unfortunately manuscripts get sometimes burned, destroyed, stolen, plundered or lost.
  • GA-Numbers, Rahlfs-Numbers, von Soden-ID, Qumran-ID…

--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, apparently there are still some large lacunae wrt properties: has edition or translation (P747) seems more suited for printed matter, e.g. instance of (P31):autograph (manuscript) (Q9026959) is possible, but relates to author not work. full work available at URL (P953) can take URL but is not very fitting. Perhaps the Handreichung zur standardisierten Kurzerfassung mittelalterlicher Handschriften could also provide some ideas/guidance. But I think, we should, at least for the time being, stay rather concise here on wikidata and leave detailed description and discussion to wikipedia (and editions, manuscript catalogues etc.). Btw: gaps in the coverage of libraries and archives will have to be closed as well. I guess authority control such as http://d-nb.info/gnd/1043220011 (source Wikipedia ^^) should be on the list too. --HHill (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
50 % of all the links of Papyrus 66 (Q666654) contain infoboxes, which are almost identical. So it it would be very usefull to use wikidata in this infoboxes. The details to this boxes can be found for example http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste by entering P66, so GA-number is essential. It would be of great help to write some of the articles of the 5000 greek manuskripts and it is very easy to reuse it in many languages. The boxes contain several other features as the chapter and verse-numbers, the size and number of pages and kategories of textquality (I-V), number of columns, number of lines, sources concernig the publication of the manuscript and so on. Similar thing with the thousands of vulgate manuscripts.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As my impression ist, there are some 90% of libraries of the new testament manuskript articles covered. There are some 200 libraries covered by own categories in dewiki. Furthermore nearly all universities and the libraries will be covered by the articles in local languages.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Universities, yes, separate articles on their libraries, not so much. The larger libraries cover much ground but there are those many many very small collections.
Greek bible manuscripts might be quite well researched and documented in a standardized fashion. Yet I still doubt we should now try mirroring the Handschriftencensus, which is in itself very much work in progress. Works in medieval latin usually receive much less scrutiny (chronicles and other historical works are a somewhat different matter). --HHill (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The Greek bible manuskripts are now very well documented. It is not much use to mirror sites like Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung or Handschriftencensus. It´s better to start with the wikipedia articles and then look what ist necessary. Only comparatively few of the 5.000 Greek, 10.000 Latin and 5.000 other New Testament manuskripts have their own articles. So it does not matter if we don´t have items for all possible libraries (however if we do, also most libraries holding any other medieval manusripts will be covered). We just need to link the libraries we allready have.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. In the near term it might be a worthwile effort focusing on illuminated manuscripts, as providing metadata for Commons appears to be the next big thing for Wikidata (see the section below). For the moment I personally will probably prefer linking to resources (digitized reproductions, (scanned) manuscript catalogues, databases such as Handschriftencensus etc.) over excerpting a sceleton of information from them or the wikipedia articles. --HHill (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I´d see the articles (or categories) as a good starting point, however it is desired to use the mentioned databases to source the items instead of the articles. For illuminated manuskripts we need additional properties. I suggest different steps: 1. basic properties for all manuscripts, even autographs of contemporary authors 2. special properties for certain groups of manuscripts: hebrew manuscripts, biblemanuscripts, medieval manuscripts, illustrated manuscripts, coptic manuscripts etc. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. What are those basic properties in your opinion, are any of them still missing? I think those mentioned in my first answer above (plus perhaps authority control) will get us a long way. We will probably soon need something like copy (Abschrift) to provide a basic link to (literary) works. How do we link to (online) catalogue entries (the Austrian National Library e. g. provides some quite useful ones) and databases (such as Handschriftencensus, or the repertories you mentioned), do we need special properties for those? --HHill (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The most basic property needed ist something that links to the work or the edition. Something like ... is manuskript of, ... is an example of, ... is a copy of. So we need the whole chain: work, edition, Manuskript. Work: Q19786, Edition: Q29334, Manuskript: Q152962. Or in other cases Work, Edition, a distinct printed copy like an incunable (Q216665) in a distinct library with its own inventory number (P217). Definitely needed are properties for GA-numbers and Rahlfs-Numbers as identifiers. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
In bibliology (Q594316) you usually refer to incunabula using the catalog code (P528) from the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (Q1421256), as they are not completely unique. But we seem to agree in seeing the need for a separate property signalling (handwritten) copy (unique item) as opposed to (printed) edition (in which normally several items had been produced mechanically, regardless of how few are still extant). Should we propose such a property as a first step? @Aubrey, Micru:, others? --HHill (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@HHill: The item that you use as "instance of" should already provide enough information, e.g. "instance of:manuscript", "instance of:paperback", "instance of:reproduction" etc. Or am I missing something else? I also commented on the proposed property.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
A more general property like the one you proposed (manifestation of) might very well suffice. The physical item sure is an instance of manuscript, but the texts it (e.g. instances of manuscript codex (Q2217259)) contains are probably not to be linked via edition or translation of (P629) or has edition or translation (P747) to (literary) works, and most of the time they are no autograph (manuscript) (Q9026959) (not a property yet, I know) either, as they aren't written by the author/compiler/translator himself but by some other scribe. --HHill (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Engravings from books; + whether scan-sets should (sometimes) have individual items

See discussion at WikiProject Visual Arts:

Follow-ups to the Visual Arts talk page. Jheald (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite book templates fetching from Wikidata

Hello, is there any example of a Cite book-like template fetching data from Wikidata? I know we can only access the "current" item (unless we use JavaScript...) but maybe some "is author of" info could be in use, I have no idea.

I think some wikis may be interested in adding to their articles some references to BEIC books — including for instance (soon) ALL the Italian-language books printed from the invention of the press to the XVI century —, though I've yet to start finding our where and how. I'm trying to put all I can in Wikidata first, so that it's then easier to "export" to any wiki. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A test page you can find here: Template:Cite item. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MARC conversion

You might be interested in this discussion that involves more than Wikidata: [libraries] MARC to {{cite book}} and {{book}}. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke and Incunabula Short Title Catalogue

I can't find a property or discussion for Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (Q1421256) or Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (Q634670), were they discussed before? I'm told they might also be in VIAF but not sure. Of course I'm asking because they're used in BEIC metadata. When adding BEIC content, I'd like to focus on entering the metadata which brings most value (to Wikidata and the wikis using that content). --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any such property or discussions to that end. But if there is to be one for GW and/or ISTC count me as   Support. --HHill (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile I have used catalog code (P528) and catalog (P972) for this. --HHill (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating a WD record for a book

Has anyone created a tool to generate a complete WD entry for a book or work by entering just the ISBN? I think a tool similar to the Ottobib tool that generates a WP-style citation when you enter the ISBN would be a time saver. Am I missing something? - PKM (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also a #MARC conversion discussion where it was pointed out that openlibrary.org has such citation templates output. You can't just paste some text somewhere to create a Wikidata entry, so I can't imagine an equivalent: there should be either a bot à la Magnus Commons upload or (more likely) a OAuth tool... which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist yet. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If one could give a specification of record mapping (i.e. list field of record → Wikidata field) or JSONP-supported endpoint (along with mapping specification as well) I could create a gadget that will translate ISBN / MARC record / whatever into Wikidata item. -- Vlsergey (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you email Karen, who offered to make such a mapping? It's possible [3] has some code to reuse. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
A tool like this would be great. Only make sure that there is always a source added (like a library catalog). OL for example has a lot of Amazon fantasy records including books that never have been published. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us talk interwikis for original language and translated books

I would like to see a decent example and a decent explanation of how interwikis work for translated books. If a book has a versions page at a wiki, eg. s:en:A Christmas Carol (Dickens) A Christmas Carol (Q62879) I can see that this page can be interwiki'd to other equivalent versions pages. I don't see how we can interwiki a specific edition of a work to any translated version, as there can be multiple editions of the original work, even GB English vs US English; there can be multiple translations of a version by the same authors (in there numbers of editions, with or without errata), or there can by different authors who translate the same work. None of these are clearly an interwiki of each other.

About the only time that I could see that a work could be interwiki'd in such a format is where the work has been published by the same author(s) at the same approximate time, in different languages. Books are not like an encyclopaedia article in the ability to interwiki when we are getting to fine detail specifics. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi billinghurst, if I'll get your right, you want to know how to set interwiki links for items that are not identical? The item A Christmas Carol (Q16335032) needs to be marked as instance of (P31): book (Q571). Every tranlation get it's own item marked as version, edition, or translation (Q3331189). The Book (i.e. work) and it's editions are connected through edition or translation of (P629). In WS you can use parallel the good old fashion "[[fr:name of the article]]" to set interwiki links for different editions. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
In short you are agreeing with me that at the WSes that we can interwiki disambiguation and versions pages, but we cannot (should not?) interwiki specific editions of a work at WD due to the differences that are introduced due to translation. In short interwiki of an edition is unlikely.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, there are unlikely. It's like citing a book. You have to cite one edition (Pygmalion, translated by Siegfried Trebitsch, Berlin 1913) and, of cause, it's not enough to say: Any translation of Pygmalion. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Single print works seem to need to entries, rather than single entries

I have been creating single edition works, so in some ways it is redundant to create a "book" page (well in these cases they are pamphlets), then to create an "edition of" page. Is there not the scope to collapse the 2 WD items together rather than as separate entities?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Books are still published, so you got the same situation as above. You never can be sure that there will be no 2nd edition or translation. You don't have to create both items at the same time. If you need a general item create a book page, if you want to cite an edition create an edition page. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition (and as one example of the situation), when there is a published lecture, there will be next to no record of the lecture as a WP article (and there would be question of whether it is notable on its own) so there is nothing particular to link that to as an event. So we have a publication, usually in pamphlet form (published but unknown whether bound), it is a record of an event, but the publication is not the lecture itself, just the published record. For some of these as they were contemporaneously relevant, they are now part of a corpus of work of the time, so exist as a singular printed edition, and not reprinted. They do not all well within this project, however, this is the only project that deals with printed matter (publications).  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"A published lecture" = article (Q191067), see Help:Sources. If you think of something else the best way to discuss it is a concrete example. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily true in past times. In the 19thC many lectures or public addresses were published individually. I can point to numerous examples that I have transcribed at English Wikisource, though for the sake of a recent example s:Electoral Disabilities of Women which has been plugged in at Electoral Disabilities of Women (Q18297799). Most won't be here as they have not fitted easily into the current schema.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If the lecture has been published individually, it's not an article, it's an independent publication. place of publication (P291): London; publication date (P577): 1872. I don't see any problem. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though back to the original point. The guidance, as I read it, says we are meant to do an item for the work, then an item for the edition, here they are synonymous. Last time (and I forget when or which work) where I tried to have them together I was mildly castigated.

So the point that I was trying to indicate, evidently in a convoluted manner, is that the original lecture/address may have been the work item (if it ever existed), however the only modern day output is the publication which is the edition item. In the absence of the first (no notability), the publication becomes both the de facto work/edition which are meant to be separate, but seems pointless, but the guidance in one sense (two items), but out of guidance (notability) [completely unknown for violation checks], hence my struggling to work out the means to progress.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What has been published, can be published again. If the lecture is in English, now it's a good time to translate it into French, Arabic, Russian etc. Every 1st edition is the only edition when it's printed. And as for oral tradition, it makes it even more important to distinguish between work and edition. Think of a printed speech. If you have been in the audience you might quote the speech differently from someone who has read the printed version. --Kolja21 (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21: I think it is better to use common sense rather than a rule. Most of the times there will be no translations and no further editions, so it creates an overhead to plan for a future that it is likely not to happen, and even if it did, we could adapt to it. In my opinion we should be creating items just when needed, or when it is likely that they are needed. For instance if I am creating an item for a text that has been translated into multiple languages, then it makes sense to invest some time creating two items, otherwise with just one it does the trick. --Micru (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: That is what I said above: "You don't have to create both items at the same time. If you need a general item create a book page, if you want to cite an edition create an edition page." --Kolja21 (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Everything about a work has a first edition, and all the aspects of uniqueness that go with it, that said we have to remove people's impressions from the factual. The work is what the author output, and only that, interpretation, reporting, ... is another person's output. I am not arguing the point about any derivative work, or succeeding work, I just see that we have the original form in its wholeness and uniqueness, and separating it out doesn't have apparent value in single edition works. If you follow on that form, a WS reproduction is its own edition and cannot be linked from the edition itself as it is another derivative work in maybe new typos, reproduced images, formatting, etc. We need to be rule-guided, not rule-bound, and fully aware of our purpose.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There are works out there, maybe 2000 years old, that have never been published in Print. Of the Oxyhychus Papyri 95% is still not published after 100 years. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 @billinghurst: You say: "The work is what the author output, and only that, interpretation, reporting, ... is another person's output." Imho this is the key to your missunderstanding. For you work = 1st editon = holy spirit of the author. It is not like this. Think about all the writers who would love to kill their publisher because they feel the publisher has ruined their work: a new title, multiple printing errors, censorship, wrong pictures. The "work" is an abstraction. It's like the term "dog". There is no dog in heaven and our dogs on earth are made after his model. The term "work" includes the original manuscripts (plural!), the first print, the second print, the translations etc. You can't take "the work" in your hand. It's immaterial. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Book information hidden in german wikipedia template BibISBN

Do you alread know it?

We have there a project called Wikipedia:BibRecord, which allows to store the information to a ISBN, DOI or PMID once and then reuise it from many articles:

Usage Examples:

  • {{bibISBN|0801857899|format=Hinweis}}

=> Ronald M. Nowak: Walker’s mammals of the world. 6. Auflage. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1999, ISBN 0-8018-5789-9, LCCN. {Info link}

  • {{BibDOI|10.1038/35057062|format=Hinweis}}
  • {{BibDOI|10.1007/978-3-540-72216-8_18|format=Hinweis}}
Dataset in Template XML (help translated to english)
<TemplateUsage output="expand">
  <Group showempty="true">
    <Parameter name="Autor">
      <Help>Forename Surename, Forename Surename...</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Herausgeber">
      <Help>Editor</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Titel" null="false" length="60">
      <Help>Title</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="TitelErg">
      <Help>Additional information to title</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Verlag">
      <Help>Publisher</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Ort">
      <Help>Publisher HQ</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="ISBN">
      <Help>ISBN number (without leading "ISBN")</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="ISBNistFormalFalsch">
      <Help>If book has formal wrong ISBN</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="ISSN">
      <Help>ISSN</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Sammelwerk">
      <Help>Compilation title</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Reihe">
      <Help>Series</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Band" length="10">
      <Help>Volume</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Nummer">
      <Help>Issue</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Auflage">
      <Help>Edition (with .)</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Jahr" length="10">
      <Help>Publishing year</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Monat">
      <Help>Publication month</Help>
      <Value>Januar</Value>
      <Value>Februar</Value>
      <Value>März</Value>
      <Value>April</Value>
      <Value>Mai</Value>
      <Value>Juni</Value>
      <Value>Juli</Value>
      <Value>August</Value>
      <Value>September</Value>
      <Value>Oktober</Value>
      <Value>November</Value>
      <Value>Dezember</Value>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Tag" length="2">
      <Condition>^(0?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[0-1])$</Condition>
      <Help>1, 2, 3...31</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Originaltitel">
      <Help>Original title</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Originalsprache">
      <Help>Language code after RFC 4646</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Übersetzer">
      <Help>Translator</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="DOI">
      <Help>Document Object Identifier (DOI) e.g. 10.1109/MSPEC.2005.1526906</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="arxiv">
      <Help>arXiv (arXiv:astro-ph/0506600)</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="GBS-id">
      <Help>Google Books ID</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="ltwork">
      <Condition>^([0-9]+)$</Condition>
      <Help>LibraryThing work-ID</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="DNB">
      <Help>Deutsche Nationalbibliothek</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="LCCN">
      <Help>Library of Congress Controll Number</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="OCLC">
      <Help>Online Computer Library Center </Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="ZDB">
      <Help>Zeitschriftendatenbank</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="PMID">
      <Help>Pubmed ID</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Lunktext">
      <Help>URL description</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="URL">
      <Help>URL, e.g.: http://server/file.pdf.</Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Zugriff">
      <Help>last access (jjjj-mm-tt) </Help>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Seiten">
      <Help>{{{Seiten|...}}}; Sollte bei Büchern erst im Artikel ausgefüllt werden.</Help>
      <Default>{{{Seiten|}}}</Default>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Seite">
      <Help>{{{Seite|...}}}; Wird auch für die Seitenangabe bei GBS-Verweisen genutzt. Sollte bei Büchern erst im Artikel ausgefüllt werden.</Help>
      <Default>{{{Seite|}}}</Default>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Spalten" length="10">
      <Help>Manche Bücher sind nicht nach Seiten sondern nach Spalten organisiert, dann hier die Spaltenzählung eingeben, z.B. 27–34, 13 ff., 192, ...</Help>
      <Default>{{{Spalten|}}}</Default>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Kapitel">
      <Help>Chapter</Help>
      <Default>{{{Kapitel|}}}</Default>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Kommentar">
      <Help>Commentary</Help>
      <Default>{{{Kommentar|}}}</Default>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="Typ">
      <Default>{{{Typ|}}}</Default>
      <Value>{{{Typ|}}}</Value>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="format">
       <Default>{{{format|}}}</Default>
      <Value>{{{format|}}}</Value>
    </Parameter>
    <Parameter name="record">
      <Default>{{{record|}}}</Default>
      <Value>{{{record|}}}</Value>
    </Parameter>
  </Group>
</TemplateUsage>

There are 2.018 books with high-quality information in the Category.

I've just created Q18328145 from de:Vorlage:BibISBN/3320021306. So it's possible to transfer the data by bot.--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: There are similar templates on other wikipedias, the problem is that these templates are usually transcluded, so they cannot be linked to Wikidata until bugzilla:47930 has been fixed. Check also Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData for the metadata import project.--Micru (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre, Micru: Probably we should leave a note at WD:N. I remember that interwiki links of template subpages have been deleted in the past. ---Kolja21 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bible manuscripts: P1 Showcase

I´ve enhanced Papyrus 1 (Q1627549) and just want to know, what WikiProject Books has to say about. I also tried to arrange the properties into a reasonable order. Do you think I did it right, or forgot something inportant? There is still one issue: the link of published in (P1433) links not to the publication but to another item with link to articles. I am still a bit unsure what to do, to create the item of the publication.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A special case and interesting example. @Micru: What is the difference between manifestation of (P1557) and exemplar of (P1574)? --Kolja21 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Giftzwerg 88: This seems confusing. Is the item an item for the physical object? Or for a printed edition of the object? It seems to confuse the two. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The item is for the papyrus manuscript, the physical object. But this manuscript was published in print by Grenfell and Hunt in 1898. I still need the item for the printed edition. You can see the scan of this edition here.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kolja21, Jheald, Giftzwerg 88: some short explanation:

  1. work: group that represents everything about an intellectual creation, by itself it has no material part, it is abstraction
  2. edition: group that represents a more particular version of a work which, in our interpretation, it might represent or not the material part (taking the role of "manifestation" too if such item doesn't exist)
  3. manifestation: group that represents an even more particular version of the work, it does represent the material part, which embodiment it was given to the information item for it to exist
  4. exemplar: one particular physical object

All levels can be combined at will, and you can say that Papyrus 1 (Q1627549) is either:

  • "exemplar of:Gospel of Matthew (work)"
  • "exemplar of:papyrus of Gospel of Matthew (edition)"
  • "exemplar of:reproduction of papyrus Gospel of Matthew, original (manifestation and only exemplar)"
  • "exemplar of:reproduction of papyrus Gospel of Matthew, published in 1898 (manifestation)"

All options are correct, depending on the amount of items created some will convey more information than others. Anyhow, don't get obsesed with the structure, since in real life there is no structure, or there can be as much structure as you wish. In general it is better to keep it as simple as possible to convey the maximum amount of information with the least number of items. A more detailed explanation about the inevitable lack of clear boundaries can be found here: Wikidata:Lounge/Growing_items. --Micru (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: I think you're a star (generally). But in this case I think your advice is misguided; and your essay may need to be revised. An item should be an instance of a particular type of thing, identified by instance of (P31). A book is not the same thing as an edition of a book which is not the same thing as a particular single copy of a book. Items should only have properties that relate to the sort of thing that they are -- the properties that are found in the schemes for particular types of thing. Items should not have properties associated with other types of thing. We're very clear on this when it comes to referencing, eg Help:Sources -- first create an item for your source. The editio princeps of a papyrus, or a manuscripts, is a thing that has its own properties: author, journal, date, publisher, etc. That information should live together on a single item. It should not sit on the item for the physical object.
For ease of data retrieval, and of understanding, it should be very clear what type of thing an item is, to know what kind of properties to expect. Physical objects and publications are different types of thing, and it should be immediately clear which one of those types an item exemplifies. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: I think the difference between "exemplar of" and "instance of" should be cleared. "Exemplar of" represents a very specific bibliographic relationship that might be equivalent to P31, but no necessarily. You can say that q1627549 is both an "exemplar of:papyrus of Gospel of Matthew (edition)" and an "instance of:papyrus", or you can say that q1627549 is an "exemplar of:papyrus of Gospel of Matthew (edition)" and an "instance of:papyrus reproduction". I think one should use "exemplar of" to indicate to which information group an item belongs, and "instance of" to indicate to which physical group the item belongs. Does that make sense to you?--Micru (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: Hmm, you write about a "very specific ... relationship", things that "might be", and the "information group", a term I never heard of in relation to Wikidata. I don't see how this will lead to a concept everyone can use and understand. Can't we keep it more simple? --Kolja21 (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21: Things can be clasified as how their physical support is alike, or as how the information they contain is alike. By "information group" I meant a class that represents information entities that are alike. I am not sure that it is correct to instantiate such classes (as they do not exist per se), but you can find "exemplars" of them (ie. objects that contain that kind of information). So basically.
  • when representing the information: edition of, exemplar of
  • when representing the physical support: subclass of, instance of
  • when connecting the physical support with the information: manifestation of (generally between classes)
Generally I agree with @Jheald: that whatever the item is an "instance of", then it should contain the properties related to that class. But when you want to sepparate physical support from content, then it gets a bit more complex. Do you think it is necessary to elaborate on this? Generally one or two items is enough for most cases, so I don't know if it is convenient to expose all these possibilities.--Micru (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Giftzwerg 88: Leaving aside the question of how to use exemplar of (P1574), whether it should be used to indicate the whole hierarchy of things that an object is an exemplar of, and how it differs from manifestation of (P1557), there still should be a clear distinction between the item for the papyrus, and the item for the first published edition.
An item for the publication should be created, as per Help:Sources, and linked from the papyrus item -- I would think using has edition or translation (P747).
The details of the publication should be moved to the new publication item -- so editor (P98), year of taxon publication (P574), and published in (P1433). In particular, published in (P1433) is currently being misused. It should point to an item for the monograph series, not to Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Q1249435).
archive URL (P1065) and reference URL (P854) are also being misused. P1065 is really for an archive.org copy of a particular reference URL that is also given, not for a scan of the book or paper. Internet Archive ID (P724) should be used for the latter, on the item about the publication.
P854, pointing to a special data page about the object, also seems misused. P854 is usually used for a reference, to back up a single statement, rather than for a page about the whole object. As a property it is also rather unsatisfactory, because it provides none of the information one would want to supply to actually use the link -- for example, who wrote the page, what its title is, when it was accessed, etc. But in this case we're not even referencing a statement, but giving a general page about the whole book. If the website is important enough, for a wide enough number of items, it may be worth creating a property for it in its own right. Otherwise I am not sure how one generically deals with such websites.
So, to summarise, the first things that should be done is to create new items for the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series of volumes; and for the specific publication Oxyrhynchus Papyri I, pp. 4-7, 1898. Getting those in place should clean up the structuring of the information a lot. Jheald (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok I agree to most of your objections. Is was quite unsure what kind of property is usable for the link to the Internet Archive. I also know, that it is not exactly necessary to have it in the manuscript item, but to have it in the edition items. I also agree to make new items for the edition by Grenfell and Hunt and link it via has edition or translation (P747) to the manuscript. I am also aware that I missused published in (P1433) and linked it to Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Q1249435) as I wrote in the introduction at the top, I just took it as a dummy instead of the edition item which we don´t have at the moment.
There are however some points where I have to disagree. Allmost all cataloges of manuscripts contain bibliographic infomation about the first edition of the manuskripts. So editor (P98), year of taxon publication (P574), and published in (P1433) is still needed. But here is an other point: the first edition is also needed to source the properties and above all this information is contained as a basic information in the manuscript infoboxes of New Testament Manuskripts. All manuscript items need to mention the first edition, the editor and the date of publishing. Any article about a manuscript without naming an edition (no matter if it´s the first or another) is unsourced and therefore not notable. So also manuscript items without naming the first editions are unsourced. We also must be aware, that in most cases there is no item for the first edition (as above) and that it is quite time consuming to create one. It also helps other users to take the chance and create the edition item. So ususaly you are not able to use published in (P1433) at all, because you have no point to link to. I only was able to put published in (P1433) because I cheated.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So, just as we do with sources for references, the first thing to do is to create an item for the edition, and then to link that edition using has edition or translation (P747).
Yes, it is unfortunate that infoboxes won't be able to include the edition information until Stage 3 is deployed early next year; but that will come. The important thing at this stage is to make sure that the structure of the data is clean and logical. Jheald (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You know: there are fifty voulumes of this publication out now. So you can understan why I hesitate.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There are still some things I did´t get. reference URL (P854) is linked to the Leuven Database of Ancient Books. The link provides not only the first edition, but also all other newer editions and deeplinks to all relevant databases and all the facts about the manuscript itself as library, shelf numbers, number of pages ... In fact, I whished the item had all this information, but we can´t store number of pages, size, number of columns and so on. We can not put this link to the edition item. So what is your suggestion to put this link.
I have some more doubts: is is appropriate to use original language of film or TV show (P364) or is this wrong and I should use language of work or name (P407) instead? Next thing: is location (P276) with the link to the location used as it is intended or is it used instead of collection (P195) to link to the Library. Do you think we should enhance the descrition of collection (P195) to include libraries explcit? The inventors/proposers of inventory number (P217) had only pieces of art in mind, as you can see on Property_talk:P217, so each time I use it, there is one more contraint violation. We need some discussion about the usage of this property and to adjust the rules for constraint errors.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Update published in (P1433) links now to the editon item.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
published in (P1433) really ought to be a property of an item for the published paper, not the physical papyrus.
There probably should be an item for the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series as a whole, in the same way that we have items for academic journals -- perhaps as a instance of (P31) of monographic series (Q6901617) (though the latter item could use some work).
We also probably ought to have an item for the actual paper the text of the papyrus was published in.
I'm not sure whether or not we need an item for the monographic volume -- ie the item The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 1 (Q18347252) that you've just created; or whether the paper + the series (with the volume number given using a qualifier for published in (P1433)) would be enough. I'd be interested to know what others think. Jheald (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
published in (P1433) is in fact linked to the item with the published paper. For the P1 Papyrus we don´t need the item for the The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. There is a need only for The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 1 (Q18347252) to link to the series. There is no way to omit the separate volume item. We need only some pages of q18347252. We can consider the pages 4-7 the same as an article in a journal. The actual paper the text of the papyrus was published in vol 1. You can compare the publication of this kind of fragments the same as a taxon in biology: every taxon has and needs the author of the first description (P405). It is just the question how it is linked.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Edition including parts of work

How to show the fact that some edition includes only some parts of the work? --DixonD (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds difficult. I don't know if this is possible yet. Can you give an example? --Kolja21 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the work (poem) and this is the 1876 edition which, however, includes only parts of the poem. I guess, some qualifier should be used for edition or translation of property --DixonD (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A poem is like an article. I would recommend published in (P1433). --Kolja21 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
published in (P1433) is another matter, it is to show that some work was published in some collection of works. Poems are like any other standalone works can be published several times and have several editions (either standalone or as parts of collections). The question was how to show that some edition includes not full work, but rather some excerpts of it, or it is a shortened version (this is often a case for chrestomathies used in schools in some coutries) etc --DixonD (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever has been published can be published again. And of cause an article, a poem or what so ever changes, when it's published multiple times. It will be shortened, corrected, updated, cencored, translated etc. If it's a translation, use language of work or name (P407). Use genre (P136) to show that the text is now part of a chrestomathy. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
dont't you think we could use a qualifier for edition or translation of (P629), like edition or translation of (P629) + qualifier partial text, or incomplete text ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Depends on the work. We need more examples. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A conditional "stated in"

Hi everyone,

I am currently working on antiquity related items, and the scholar sources I'm using regularly express conditional statements. That is, due to the fragmentary nature of the original sources, we can never really be sure of some information (although, that remains a valuable estimate). For instance, Olympiodoros the Younger may very well be the student of Damascius, although we do not have any kind of definite evidence. I've still used "stated in", but that's a bit dishonest to the scholar work I'm quoting…

Is there some way to state this uncertainty (perhaps using qualifiers)? If not, would it be a good idea to create a new property (a hypothesized in, for instance)?

Alexander Doria (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can overview the wole thing, there is no way to express different levels of certainty. However you can make a statement and an opposing or contradicting statement at the same time with different value and a source. So you can indicate, there are different oppinions out there.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata doesn't play with reliability of references: you put a reference to any value and you let the people playing themselves with the quality analysis of the data. Snipre (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback.
Giftzwerg 88 : yes, that may well work, whenever there is a definite set of alternatives. But here, my alternative is rather between a positive statement (X is a student of Y) and a negative statement (X is not a student of Y).
Snipre Just to be more precise: I'm not concerned with the reliability of the reference (actually quite good in this case), but more with the explicit use of uncertain statement in the references. For instance, my main source (the Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques) does not state that Olympiodoros the Younger is the student of Damascius, but that, given the fragmentary information we gather from ancient documents, he may well be. Indicating that my source states this information seems a bit far-fetched. This problem is quite recurrent with old data: scholars are not able to express explicit affirmation, but a likelyhood is still a valuable insight.
Alexander Doria (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
sourcing circumstances (P1480) could perhaps be (ab)used for that purpose. --HHill (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just seen it. It really seems to suit my needs (presumably is listed as one the possible terms: that's not even an abuse…). It might be a good idea to give it more visibility (for instance, on the book project page). Alexander Doria (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The European library puts million of bibliographic metadata in CC0

Moved from the project chat.

Hi everyone,

I don't think the topic has been already discussed, but the European Library (which represents a lot of European libraries) has just published several millions of bibliographic metadata in CC0. I think this is a very valuable resource for Wikidata — both as data per se, and as pre-registered sources to reference other data (currently, the process of entering manually bibliographic metadata to get accurate sources is a bit painful).

They have just contacted me on twitter and would love to have part of this huge dataset reused on Wikidata.

Alexander Doria (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Before any importation we have to match the description model of this database with our properties. See this for the properties of the database. Snipre (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Snipre ! I'm gonna work on the property matching this week-end. So far, numerous properties do not seem to have any counterpart in Wikidata — but on the other hand, they are probably used quite seldomly in the original dataset.
Besides, given the huge size of the dataset, a subset would be useful to run some prelimenary tests.
Alexander Doria (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


European Library properties Description Corresponding Wikidata properties Remarks
abstract A summary of the ressource Example Example
aggregates Aggregations, by definition, aggregate resources. The ore:aggregates relationship expresses that the object resource is a member of the set of Aggregated Resources of the subject (the Aggregation). This relationship between the Aggregation and its Aggregated Resources is thus more specific than a simple part/whole relationship, as expressed by dcterms:hasPart for example. Example Example
alternative (Alternative Title) The distinction between titles and alternative titles is application-specific Example Example
audience A class of entity for whom the resource is intended or useful Example Example
begin This property denotes the start date of a period of time. Example Example
created (Date Created) Date of creation of the resource. publication date (P577)(?) Example
dateAccepted (Date Accepted) Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal). Example Example
dateCopyrighted (Date Copyrighted) Date of copyright. Example Example
description Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the resource Example Example
end This property denotes the end date of a period of time Example Example
extent The size or duration of the resource - We have to wait for quantity with unit datatype
format Examples of dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the list of Internet Media Types [MIME]. Example Example
happenedAt (Happened At) This property associates an event with the place at which the event happened. narrative location (P840) Example
hasPart (Has Part) A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource. has part (P527) Example
identifier Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system. Example Example
isShownAt (Is Shown At) An unambiguous URL reference to the digital object on the providerÂ’s web site in its full information context. reference URL (P854)(?) Example
isVersionOf (Is Version Of) Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Example Example
Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example
Return to the project page "WikiProject Books/2014".