Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2023

Imprimatur as allowed value of front and back matter

An edition of a play from 1709 that I am describing (Q115774326) has as its front matter imprimatur (Q955005). But imprimatur is not an allowed value of front and back matter (Property:P8570). How do I propose imprimatur to be included there? Do I do it on its discussion page? Tranquillus (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Book measurements

Hi,

Maybe a dumb question but should we use height (P2048) or length (P2043) for books? And should try to harmonize this (some people may see books more as vertical object, other as horizontal object related to a collection of paper sheets...)

Right now, 281 version, edition or translation (Q3331189) use height (P2048) and 156 use length (P2043). For illuminated manuscript (Q48498), it's 287 vs. 4...

SELECT * WHERE {
  ?q wdt:P31 wd:Q3331189 ;
     wdt:P2048 ?height .
}

Try it!

SELECT * WHERE {
  ?q wdt:P31 wd:Q3331189 ;
     wdt:P2043 ?length .
}

Try it!

VIGNERON (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable with collecting publication size: quarto, A4, and then having those book sizes have the page dimensions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@billinghurst: most book don't have a regular size. For A4 or quarto (which is not a precise size), we already have distribution format (P437) for that.

Related question: What should we do if an edition comes in both hardcover and paperback (without distinguishing ISBN), where the measurements are significantly different between the two? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: in theory it should have two different ISBNs (since it's two different editions) but indeed publisher quite often make that kind of mistake. In that case, I would kekep one item and put distribution format (P437) as qualifier for each measurement (but the two items solution may be legit also, depending on what you want to do with the date). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

But older books do not have ISBNs at all, and some books that do have them did not make this distinction. I have books on my own shelves, from a major publisher, where the ISBN is the same for both the hardcover and two different paperback editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Paperback and hardcover should be different Wikidata items. They have different ids in different sites and they have different page numeration. So they cannot be used interchangeably as information sources. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more confused I am... Sometimes, apparently, the length is use to say the book is printed in landscape (instead of the more usual portrait orientation, which I could understand even if the implicit data is probably not a good idea here) but apparently it's not even always the case : https://w.wiki/68E5 and likewise with height and width : https://w.wiki/68E9 . And I'm not even talking about books with height, length and width : https://w.wiki/68EC... Could we find some way to make sense of this? (or at the very least to document the current mess on Wikidata:WikiProject Books) Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Measurements may also include mass (P2067), which is sometimes mentioned on a publisher edition's webpage. Jumtist (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Books with illustrations

How to mark a book that it has illustrations? D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

D6194c-1cc: illustrator (P110) is probably sufficient for now. While it doesn't directly state "this book has illustrations", if an illustrator is provided, it can be assumed that illustrations are present. Similarly, we don't explicitly state "this book contains words" (children's picture books and some graphic novels may be stories without words), but the presence of words may be inferred from properties such as author (P50) and language of work or name (P407). For particular editions that have associated illustrations, something like edition number (P393) might work (see The Grey Lady (Q113992351), which uses "new edition"). -Animalparty (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Most books don't have illustrators specified, but they are marked that they have illustrations. An example: [1].
As for edition number (P393) example I fixed it to the edition/version (P9767) property. But this property is not exactly what I need. "Illustrated" is indeed related to the edition, but it's not the edition itself. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Setting illustrator (P110) to "unknown value" might be a solution in cases like that. Pfadintegral (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions

The account of the Antarctic expedition by James Clark Ross, published in 1847 in two volumes, currently has six WD entries. There seems to be a work item for the whole work A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, during the Years 1839-43 (Q56873383), work items for each of the two volumes, and edition items for each of the two volumes. (Plus a pair of items seem to be duplicates.) This organisation does not seem sensible, as subsequent editions of a work need not have the same number of volumes as the first edition. In this case there was only one edition published, although there are a couple of 20th century reprints or facsimile editions. I would like to tidy this up. Is the best option: work item - edition item (first edition) - edition item Vol 1 - edition item Vol 2; or should I just have the work and edition items with links to the two volumes in the edition item? I've seen it done both ways. Full text of the two volumes is available at BHL. Is there anything I have to watch out for to avoid breaking any links? Thanks Kognos (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I faced the same problems. The most questionable example is Seldin and Giebisch's The Kidney: Physiology and pathophysiology (Q115978868). The book has 5 editions. But in 4th edition it changed its name (the owner might have been changed, too). Since these are editions of the same work I've created single work item. But can single work have multiple names? D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And about multivolume works I've used another approach. I've created common work item and common edition item for multiple volumes. Each volume was created as part of multivolume edition: Jubb, Kennedy & Palmer's Pathology of Domestic Animals (6th Edition) (Q115676194). It's wrong to make a volume edition part of work item. It must be part of edition item. But this practice might be different for some cases (if volumes are independent of each other).
The scheme: multivolume work -> multivolume edition -> volume 1 / volume 2 / volume 3 / ... D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Also combining both the name and volume number in the title (P1476) property will break existing cite q templates. Templates expect that the name do not contain volume number. Example (with not the best realisation): James Clark Ross (1847), A voyage of discovery and research in the southern and Antarctic regions, during the years 1839-43, 1, London: John Murray, Wikidata Q56872966. English Wikipedia template has better support for the volumes. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I should put the Volume number in the item label, but not in the title? Kognos (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, item label may contain the full name. And each property must contain expected value. Currently there is only a problem with volume name (if such exists), but I'll create property proposal for that case. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that multivolume work (Q60534428) might be used for the work item. The group of works (Q17489659) is less precise and is not a subclass of written work (Q47461344). D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed the problem with group of works (Q17489659), as it generated a couple of warnings. multivolume work (Q60534428) sounds good. Kognos (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've made the changes. If you have a moment to review that would be helpful. The top level item is A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, during the Years 1839-43 (Q56873383). Kognos (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Form vs genre

When to use form of creative work (P7937), and when to use genre (P136)? For example, novel (Q8261) is literature form (as documentation says) and literature genre, and it can be stores in form of creative work (P7937). historical novel (Q192239) is genre, it can't be stored in form of creative work (P7937). What about textbook (Q83790) and higher education textbook (Q115962348)? Can we say that textbook (Q83790) is a form and higher education textbook (Q115962348) is a genre? D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Prefer historical prose literature (Q136472) over historical novel (Q192239). Mixing genre and form in the same statement is poor structure and leads to the unnecessary multiplication of labels as every possible form and genre pair then gets generated.

I would agree that textbook (Q83790) is a genre, however, textbooks are often not a literary work (Q7725634). They are often a scholarly work (Q55915575) or work of science (Q11826511). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

But documentation on the project page gives feminist novel (Q26987767) as an example. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I am unsure what is the difference between genres and forms. Am I correct that those are forms and must be used in the form of creative work (P7937) property: poetry (Q482), play (Q25379), essay (Q35760), short story (Q49084), and novel (Q8261)? D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The project page has some outdated recommendations. Genre refers to the literary content; while Form refers to the length and structure of a work. For example, a novel is defined by its length, as is a short story, or serialized work, so those are forms. Horror, romance, sci-fi, western, and feminist are genres. A novel can be a horror, a romance, a sci-fi, a western, or a feminist novel. A short story can be a can be a horror, a romance, a sci-fi, a western, or a feminist short story. A serialized work can be a horror, a romance, a sci-fi, or a feminist serialized work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Poetry is a composition style, and is the opposite of prose. However, the labels for poetry are hopelessly muddled right now. A play (Q25379) is a subclass of literary work (Q7725634), but is currently being used as a "form", since the FBRR label of dramatic work is merged into play (but should not be). The labels need to be untangled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So probably prose, poetry and play might be moved into a separate property as it refers to the content representation. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I found language style (P6191) property, but it's not related to content representation. Also novel and poetry can be combined in a work: [2]. So probably three different properties can describe any work. But one need to be created. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You say that mixing genre and form is a bad practice. It might be true to the separate properties. But what about such a structure:

• instance of (P31) = historical novel (Q192239),
• genre (P136) = historical prose literature (Q136472),
• form of creative work (P7937) = novel (Q8261)?

We specified that work is historical novel and set separately its genre and form. But in this case historical novel (Q192239) need to be a subclass of written work (Q47461344). D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We would not use instance of (P31) = historical novel (Q192239), but instead instance of (P31) = literary work (Q7725634). --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Profile ID for a photography bibliography database

Hello, I'd like to let you know about my property proposal for Base de Dados de Livros de Fotografia profile external identifier. Database of Photography Books (Q116446989) (BDLF) is a Brazilian database for photography books. Any comment or vote would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! –guttitto^{(talk · contribs)} 00:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

renamed property P1292

DNB edition ID (P1292) has values pointing to a singular book record. This is neither plural nor anything edited in or for DNB nor an edition, least one produced in or for DNB. If there is an edition published in hard cover, paperback and pdf and DNB has acquired all these three, then we have three new corresponding records. The old property name was linguistically wrong. I corrected this. If someone feels uncomfortable about the new property name (de/en) please suggest something better here. But please don't step back to the incorrect name it has had. Thank you all! --Vollbracht (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's about these edits. Changing the labels of the property from "DNB editions" ("DNB-Editionen") into "DNB recording" ("DNB-Erfassung"). The new terms "recording" ("Erfassung") doesn't fit to the labels of the other Wikidata property to identify books (Q29547399) like SUDOC editions (P1025). --Kolja21 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vollbracht: If you what to change a label please don't rely on your linguistic feeling. You have to look up the terms used by libraries. I can find no evidence of "DNB recording" nor for "DNB-Erfassung". --Kolja21 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Per coherence with SUDOC editions (P1025), restored "Editionen" and "editions"; I left "Erfassung" and "recording" as aliases. --Epìdosis 09:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/volume title

Notifying about property proposal according to the #Volume title discussion. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Volume title

I've found that volume entities store common work title and subtitle in appropriate properties. The volume (P478) property usually stores the number of the volume, and object named as (P1932) specifies that number as in the source (like "I", "II", ...). The title (P1476) property could be used as a qualifier for the volume (P478) property to store the volume title but it is not allowed yet and also might confuse, because full name would be "Title: subtitle. Volume X. Volume title". What is the best choice to store volume title?
As I think a new property for the volume (or part?) title might be a good solution with title (P1476) as temporary solution, but first I'd like to consult here. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a few specific examples. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's one example which has volume title but no associated number: Red Data Book of Russia, volume "Animals" (2nd edition) (Q115189432). And another example with volume number and title set: United Nations peacekeeping in the Congo: 1960-1964; an analysis of political, executive and military control. Volume 2. Full text (Q115926218). And here's how it used by Lua modules: ru:Модуль:CiteGost#Тесты (section need to be expanded). D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And another item which I found using SPARQL: Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia (volume 1) (Q43197170). D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Surprisingly, other volumes of this book store volume title in the title (P1476) property. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I found a way to search using SPARQL without timeouts. And there is a big heterogeneity in filling volume edition properties across the items. Here are some examples:
The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms (Q47752311)
Q89938678
Les Mille et Une Nuits, Contes Arabes, Tome 9 (Q106824956)/Les Mille et Une Nuits, Contes Arabes, Tome 9 (Q106824860)
Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F (Q76707780)
Q98385542
Mammals of South America, Volume 2 (Q57382437).
And here's SPARQL query:

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?name ?subtitle ?volume WHERE {
    ?item p:P478 ?volumeSnaks.
    ?volumeSnaks (ps:P478) ?volume.
    ?item p:P31 ?isInstanceSnaks.
    ?isInstanceSnaks (ps:P31) wd:Q1238720.
    ?item p:P1476 ?nameSnaks.
    ?nameSnaks (ps:P1476) ?name.
    ?item p:P1680 ?subtitleSnaks.
    ?subtitleSnaks (ps:P1680) ?subtitle.
}
LIMIT 100

We need to standardise this. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've made some research. Some common patterns with my estimations:

title (P1476)	subtitle (P1680)	volume (P478)	Estimation
Multivolume work title	Multivolume work subtitle	Volume number	+++ (standard case when the volume has only number, Cite Q modules support this pattern)
Multivolume work title	Volume title	Volume number	--- (very bad practice, mixed property meaning between cases)
Multivolume work title	Multivolume work subtitle	Volume number and title	-- (bad practice, even not multilingual text)
Volume title	Volume subtitle	Volume number	--- (Cite Q modules doesn't expect that the title is related to the volume, reordering things by this pattern would be hard to implement, and it would conflict with standard case with no volume title)

--D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's test the proposal with one of the more unusual series in my own library: a multi-volume multilingual translating dictionary between Polish and English. It contains 4 volumes, but there is no common title for the four volumes. Two of the volumes share the Polish title Wielki Słownik Polsko-Angielski and the English title The Great Polish-English Dictionary, while the other two volumes share the Polish title Wielki Słownik Angielsko-Polski and the English title The Great EnglishPolish Dictionary. The two Polish-English volumes have individual volume "titles" A–Ó and P–Ż, and the English-Polish volumes have individual "titles" A–N and O–Z. All four volumes have the same publication date, publisher, editor, and a "scientific supervisor" in common. There is a "fifth" Supplement volume that is paperback (the other four are hardcover) that uses the English-Polish titles only, because the volume is organized only by English headwords. It shares all the smae publication information as the four main volumes, except there is no "scientific supervisor" listed. None of the volumes are numbered.

So how would this information be coded? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I found The Great Polish-English Dictionary reprint on Amazon: [3]. As I understand it is a 2 volume edition. According to the images in the first comment volumes have numbers. Titles A–Ó and P–Ż probably could be classified as volume names. According to the images in comments to the The Great English-Polish Dictionary ([4]) volumes have numbers too. Each of those 2 volume editions have volumes I and II. Also those editions might have common work named Stanislawski's dictionary, but as I understand, this name is unofficial. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As for volumes without numbers, Red Data Book of Russia, volume "Animals" (2nd edition) (Q115189432) is a good example. It has common title "Красная книга Российской Федерации" and volume title "Животные". To format those properly I need to know what is common name and what is volume name. This volume is separate from other one and published independently. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That book on Amazon is not the same book I'm talking about. I have the 1975 edition, for which there are no volume numbers, and all five volumes are part of the same set. Since you've used a completely different book in formulating your answers, your replies have no bearing on the question I asked about. You've used a different publication in replying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it this one: [5]? Great Polish-English Dictionary is title (P1476) and "A-N" might be volume title. The Great Polish-English Dictionary would be title (P1476) and "A–Ó" might be volume title (in this case monolingual text would be perfect). If the set have common name, then a single work item and a single edition item could be created for all volumes: work <-edition or translation of (P629)-- edition <-part of (P361)-- volume, <-part of (P361)-- volume, ... What is a supplement? I've never seen such classification before. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) That is only three of the volumes, and not the full set. There are four principal volumes plus a Supplement volume (you can see the supplement volume in the photo; it has a striped cover). (2) Why would the title be in English? There are two title pages for each the volumes: one in Polish and one in English. There are two parallel prefaces: one in Polish and one in English. There are parallel texts in columns for the front matter: one column in Polish and one in English. (3) No, the set does not have a common work title for all volumes. (4) A supplement is an additional volume containing material not present in the other volumes, because it was collected after the text was set for the place where it would have been printed. Sometimes a Supplement is included as an Appendix, but in this instance it is a separate volume. The "Dictionary of Old Polish Names" is another series with a Supplement volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) Well, other volumes will be named in the same manner. The volume that is supplement must be marked as supplement by some other way, probably by instance of (P31) property. (2) Every volume item can have many titles, many subtitles and many volume titles, since its text is monolingual. language of work or name (P407) shall have two languages (in simple scenario Cite Q and similar templates should take first language or requested language to fetch other fields). D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) "in the same manner"? meaning what? I still don't know how that would work because you are choosing some of the data and ignoring the other data. There is no series title. Two of the volumes have identical titles except for the "A-N" (etc), and the other two volumes have identical titles, but different from the first two, except for the letter range. You haven't expressed yet how any of that would be captured. How do you even start to set up a data item for a multi-volume work where there is no common title for the set? And the point key to this discussion, if we use only "A-N" as the volume title, then where does the rest of the title go from each volume? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, to the title (P1476) property. I don't see any problems with different title (P1476) properties in a set. If this set will be considered as a single work, then work's title (P1476) might be empty, and work label might have both names, like "A and B". As I think the question is whether those volumes represent a single work and how to name it in that case. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Works in volumes are heterogeneous, not why they are volumes. If they are all published at once in a set, then typically it is due to size, and they are essentially volume 1, 2, 3, ... Other publications have their volumes published in time sequence, and their volumes are specific and there is a purpose to differentiate. For numbers of work at Wikisource, when it is reproduced, there is little real value in that it is in one volume or another, as such the volume is just a continuation of the work, and really apart from knowing whether you have the complete work or not, or you are reading the pages in the right order, the vol. information itself is of zero interest. In other works, the volume specificity is vital, and the name itself may not be particularly informative beyond telling you it starts at a point of time, or a letter of the alphabet. So in the end, often it is only the number of the volume that peaks any interest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This information is used when citing the source, for example: Ernest W. Lefever; Wynfred Joshua (30 June 1966), United Nations peacekeeping in the Congo: 1960-1964: an analysis of political, executive and military control, 2, Wikidata Q115926218 (no volume name is displayed, since currently there is no way to specify it in a standard way in Wikidata). D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Structuring commonly used formats of academic books

In the field of language learning and college books, It is common to find books that include the following names in their titles

• student's book (aka. textbook): it is aimed to students
• workbook: contain exercises related to each chapter in the textbook. It is also aimed to students
• solutions manual: contain solutions of the exercises found in the textbook. It is sometimes aimed to students, sometimes aimed to teachers
• teacher's book (aka. instructor's manual): contain instructions and recommendation for teachers to teach students each chapter in the textbook. Sometimes they include the answers to the exercises in the workbook.

The content of such books follow the same format, so I think those names can be used to classify such books. I wonder if there are or there have been previous efforts on structuring this information in Wikidata. I was only able to find workbook (Q8034663) and only one Wikidata item was linked (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Q8034663).

-- Rdrg109 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I have asked the question in the Telegram group of Wikidata (link to message). -- Rdrg109 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've created higher education textbook (Q115962348). In my country this name is used for textbooks for higher education. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And another subclass of textbooks: school book (Q2250844). D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Some another academic books: monograph (Q193495), reference work (Q13136), books for professionals (like those with "guide for healthcare professionals" on the cover). D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: Thanks for the information! I wasn't aware of those classes and I agree that these could be used. I have some questions about this：

1. Which property should we use in statements to link to those classes? I would use instance of (P31), but I was also thinking of genre (P136).

2. Should we link to those classes in Work items or Edition items? I feel we should link to them in Work items, because they represent the written work and the editions just different versions of the same written work.

3. I have noticed that all the WIkidata items that you mentioned are subclasses of written work (Q47461344) which complies to the rule "Works should be instances of written work (Q47461344) or one of its subclasses." mentioned in Work items. If I wanted to create the item "teacher's book", then this item also needs to be a subclass of written work (Q47461344). Am I correct?

-- Rdrg109 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Well, since whose items are subclasses from genre, genre (P136) must be used instead of instance of (P31). Also it's quite counterintuitive (using SPARQL I found many work items that are instances of genres).

2. Genre properties links to work items.

3. Probably, your item need to be a subclass of literary genre (Q223393) or one of its subclasses. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In my language teacher's book is named as "educational and methodological manual" ("Учебно-методическое пособие", Russian). D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

These aren't categories of "academic books" but categories of "course books" or "classroom books". Academic literature is something else entirely. Academic literature does include Textbooks, but also includes Review journals, Reference books, Symposium volumes, and Honorarium collections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reprint and edition

Hi y'all,

I'm not 100% sure, should reprints (reprint (Q1962297)) consider to be the same edition or not? Almost all data are the same (including the BnF identifier) and conceptually they're closer to edition but I'd like more point of view for confirmation/infirmation.

For an example, I created one item for the edition and its reprint here: Q116868983 (only 3 data need a qualifier to indicate it concerns the reprint only).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a tough question. I know that the title page and colophon are often different in reprints from the first printing, and there can be different author information as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the title page is a bit different (not the same image as illustration) but as far as Wikidata is concerned, in this cas, the data are the same. You have a good point, behind "reprint" there can be very various practices... Some are homothetic reprint, almost identifical and some are quite different, I guess we can't really make a general rule then... Cdlt, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If publishers are different then different items are required for the reprint and original edition. When those items are used to cite sources, cite modules need to know how to differentiate those editions. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable item manifestations by User:RaboKarbakian

I am going to start nominating for deletion numbers of items generated by User:RaboKarbakian as failing WD:Notability and not complying with WD:Books. This conversation will be part of the reference for future nominations.

Example

This The Construction of the Wonderful Canon of Logarithms (Q107661385) is the item that is linked to enWS and it had half work / half edition properties and data

Then there is Q107644932 where an item has been setup for the non-notable scan of the edition, and then it has no links to it, and yet is used for information that should be in the edition. Trying to explain that this is outside of guidance seems to be disregarded, and they will not bring the matter here for resolution.

This TWISTER conception have all been generated so a template can output data at enWS, and not have the item of notability that is queriable and of true value. The process in use is just generating junk items.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Various P31 on editions

@JAn Dudík: and myself have been disagreeing on Q100788003 upon whether instance of (P31)version, edition or translation (Q3331189) is compatible with various other P31, in this case poem (Q5185279). Seing the recommendations that doesn't seems the case to me. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There are almost 10000 poems on cs.wikisource with P31=poem (Q5185279) and thousands of other pages with various P31.

Many poems were published only once in one language, one collection can contain tens of such poems - and it is dubious to have one item for single poem and second item for this poem as version, edition or translation (Q3331189).

On the other hand, some poems have more versions, some were translated. In this case is logical to have one item for poem and next items for every edition/version/translation - but these minority are still poems.

I have two more points for using P31:

• On cs.wikisource I use P31 for simple categorization [6] (not active for subpages yet).
• And I use WE-Framework (Q22946134) which does not support form of creative work (P7937), so is more complicated to add it.

JAn Dudík (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If we talk about edition of a work, then poem (Q5185279) need to be specified in the written work (Q47461344) item. version, edition or translation (Q3331189) item is related to the edition of the work, so we can get information about work through the edition or translation of (P629) property. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But an edition can be prose, even when the original work was a poem. Translations and editions do not always have the same writing format as the original. Iliad (Q8275) was written as poetry, but there are many prose translations. Kalevala (Q130924) was written in poetry, but has prose translations as well. The same is true of many works of literature. So whether something is prose or poetry is edition-dependent, and not necessarily the same as the original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

yep, but this needs to be indicated as form of creative work (P7937), not as instance of (P31) Hsarrazin (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Banned books

I am interested in revisiting the WikiProjectBooks:2020 conversation around how to indicate that a book has been banned. Ideally, I'd like to be able to indicate that a book appears on a banned book list, which is not the same as a book that has been legally challenged (e.g., using the "significant event" property for Ulysses). Any thoughts on this? ThalassaLib (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You would need to find lists that meet either Wikidata criteria for notability, or Wikisource requirements for inclusion. That done, a data item would be created for the list, and the books in question could be added as being "part of" the list.

This avoids the problem of identifying "banned" as a property of the work, which isn't appropriate, by instead indicating that a list of banned works includes it, which is a property of the list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

We are working in the international campaign of this April "Every Book its Reader" [7]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EveryBooksItsReader_2023 and we wanted to create or modify articles about banned books.

We realised that from all the different classes that are related to banned books, we think that only Classe Index Librorum Prohibitorum (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q22765) provides the especific works (books) that have really been banned. For example if we query https://w.wiki/6Uwy and we take for example the 1st result Paradise Lost (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q28754) we find the statement part of Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Most of the other classes what they do is providing links to lists in Wikipedia about banned books. We think that some work needs to be done in order to clarify the components of Wikidata ontologies about banned books. And we think there is the need to transfer data from Wikipedia (for example one list about banned books like this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Autoren,_deren_Werke_auf_dem_Index_librorum_prohibitorum_standen) into Wikidata and make sure that the class banned books is provided.

Is there anybody that will like to work with this challenge? 161.116.49.185 16:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Knowing which books are borrowable from open library

If I understand correctly, and I not, an edition can have an open library id Open Library ID (P648) without being backed with a borrowable or publicly available version of that book. Is there a way of identifying if a book is borrowable from open library? Thankyou. Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga_(a)^talk 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This also came up on a discussion at User talk:OpenLibraryBot#Adding OLID for items for which no borrowable item exists. from which I realised setting online access status (P6954) to {{Q|Q107459441)} or {{Q|24707952)} in conjunction with full work available at URL (P953) will do what I effectively want, at least from a WikiBooks viewpoint. I've added that functionality to the personal I/we(To be clear Deirge is my alt account for the Gaelic but he doesn't have Cite Q whereas I on Simple wiki do) are using to load book editions to Wikidata. Thankyou.  Done -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting my previous main account Djm-leighpark has been abandoned and I now use DeirgeDel as my main account which was renamed from Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 20:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Loading up books to Wikidata

I have a collection of (offline) books I use for citations of (mainly) railway particularly (Irish Railway) related articles and wish to consider loading those to Wikidata. They are used in "Cite book" templates scattered across the English Wikipedia, and in particular on the page en:Bibliography of Irish rail transport. I can map these "cite books" into a .csv file relatively easily with a possibility to use Quickstatments to load the information up. But I am questioning if people have better ways of doing this and also I may be slightly unsure of some of the properties etc. that I should be using for the "cite book" to quickstatements .csv map. Thankyou. Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga_(a)^talk 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In the end this has gone a slightly different route and I've bodged up a (Google sheets) spreadsheet template that that can be copied and used for loading up a book edition. It's a bit of a cranky brute and not really suitable for general use but it has a couple of nifty feature (parameters on a separate sheet to quickstatement output, channging LAST to a 'Q' number being a one-cell change which is useful for loading in sections to debug) but in the end its doing a job for me & my alt. account Deirge. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting my previous main account Djm-leighpark has been abandoned and I now use DeirgeDel as my main account which was renamed from Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 20:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Author name order discussion

There is an good faith author name order discussion going on at en:Template talk:Cite Q#author name order - a suggestion with int21h and Jarnsax. Rightly or wrongly I have recently been using the series ordinal (P1545) qualifier to achieve name order, see Private and untimetabled railway stations (Q114391821). Please note a few things, I generally here primarily for Irish Railway stuff for which I use my alt. account Deirge, however I have recently being dealing with (Mainly) non-Irish related books or the Simple English Wiki so I've used Djm-leighpark for those. I'm indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia so I am censored from contributing to the "Cite Q" conversation there. (For information I was checking the talk page there as I think I may have stumbled across a possible Cite Q bug with Steam Locomotive Construction and Maintenance (Q19063894) whereby the title isn't linking to the rightful place in my opinion - but that's out of topic for the author name order). @Mike Peel, Pigsonthewing: for any comments. -- Thankyou. User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 11:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh - that discussion was more about the formatting or author names rather the order of the names of the authors. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:Djm-leighpark That's not really meant to have anything to do with how the information is stored here, it's about how the template itself chooses where to get the information that it displays in a citation.... if it shows up by dafault as "Bob Smith", "Smith, Bob", or "Dr. Bob Smith, Esq." from the title pages, as opposed to having to manually fix every citation in the article markup there in order to display them in the way that that the enwiki MOS wants, since the info needed to display them the way that enwiki wants should already be on Wikidata attached to the author (surname and given names).

It's also not anything to do with with the order in which the "names of the authors" are displayed, (Bob, then Joe, then Tom) which comes from the attached serial ordinal. Jarnsax (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: Thanks for looking into that. Cite Q really needs to be able to do some form of surname-firstname/iniitals without any specific parameters apart from a formatting style directive. In terms of the other concern I had it related to Cite Q use on the simple Wikipedia (it might relate to other language wiki's as well) and I've raised that at Simple:Template talk:Cite Q#Different results for links from title into Wikisource on Simple. ... that isn't a Wikidata issue either as far as I can tell. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: The plan is to use author given names (P9687) and author last names (P9688) - it needs to be added into the Cite Q code at some point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel Thanks for that. I just wanted to mention it as a suggestion 'over there' since I hadn't actually seen it mentioned.. I'm aware it's still a work in progress. Jarnsax (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting my previous main account Djm-leighpark has been abandoned and I now use DeirgeDel as my main account which was renamed from Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 20:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Merging and keeping distinct Wikidata items associated with Work(s) by Dorril

Merging of Q117348344 (edition) into Q6715920 (Works)

I see MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations (Q6715920), with its instance of (P31) of literary work (Q7725634) (a subclass of written work (Q47461344)), fully falling within the scope of a Works Wikidata item (written work (Q47461344)) Thus a merge from MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations (Q117348344), an edition level item with its instance value of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) would be inappropriate out out of item with the two level work/edition frameork on Wikidata. It is why I created Q117348344 with has edition or translation (P747)/edition or translation of (P629) links from/to Q6715920. An additional issue with the merge is that full work available at URL (P953) is associated with a works level item when it should only be used for editions. This is why I Special:Diff/1866770562 HeminKurdistan's good faith merge. If I understand correctly HeminKurdistan seems to voice the opinion Q117348344 and Q6715920 are the same and should be merged, see discussions Talk:Q117348344#Redirect and here. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Q117378670 - same book? and other issues

HeminKurdistan's good faith creation of MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service (Q117378670) seems to have been triggered by my association of Q6715920 with the Open Library ID (P648) Works level id of OL3607465W, see [8]. Broadly speaking I see Q117378670/OL22746937M and Q117348344/OL6840738M as editions of the same work Q6715920/OL3607465W albeit different titles. There also the online borrowable paperback edition OL8997957M not on Wikidata too for that matter. I can fix Q117378670 as an edition of Q6715920 as described here (plus may a couple of other tweak corrections) but I need consensus first as I didn't create Q117378670 as this action might be controversial. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

These four seem to be editions of the same book:

1. (2002) MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service, pbk. (rev.), New York: Touchstone
2. (2001) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, (pbk. (rev.), London: Fourth Estate
3. (2001) MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service, New York: Free Press
4. (2000) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London; Fourth Estate

I have pdf file of number 1, which is Q117378670. I checked table of contents for numbers 2 and 4 on the internet, and they seem identical with number 1. Q6715920 and Q117348344 both seem to be number 4. HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@HeminKurdistan: Thankyou for confirming these are editions of the same work, which was present with the work level item, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations (Q6715920) which is sitelinked to w:en:MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations. Editions should be sourcing, for example when you used MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service (Q117378670) as a reference here. From your answer I may be wrong but I am concerned that you've not got the concept "Thus a two-layer framework, consisting of work and edition, has been used for creating Book properties in Wikidata" at Wikidata:WikiProject Books:Bibliographic properties as you seem to be treating "work" and "edition" as the same entity type. I'm not sure if I can explain this better and it may need a third party.-- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't use "book" to describe things here because that word can mean many things. If there are multiple editions of something, then each edition gets its own data item, with all the publication information specific to that edition. When OpenLibrary entries are correctly set up, their code for an edition ends in "M". What you call "the same book" we describe as a work, and all editions get linked from a data item for the work. The data item for the work describes the generalities, without anything specific to any edition. So in this situation, there should be one data item for the work, and four data items (one each) for the four editions. Use has edition or translation (P747) on the data item for the work to link to each edition, and use edition or translation of (P629) to link on the edition to the main data item for the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolving

• I'm going to add the alternative name "MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service" to MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations (Q6715920) and make MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service (Q117378670) into an edition. This is in line with EncycloPetey's and my own thinking. Things should look more obvious after I've done that. I might also create an Wikidata item for the OL8997957M edition later. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 13:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Abridged vs unabridged editions

I'm interested in adding data on if an edition of a work is abridged or unabridged. I can see abridged edition (Q65920672) but no inverse, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't better exist as something like format P437?

It can be useful for selecting between editions that contain the "whole text" of a work, and some that have been modified in some way?

Is there an existing convention for this I've missed? or should we create one? Huw Diprose (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I admit I am not an trained expert here here merely an wikidata semi-cowboy learning by mistakes and indef blocked from the English Wikipedia for by alleged sins. I will give some of my thoughts. Looking at abridged edition (Q65920672) I can see it is a subclass of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) and thus should be usable at the instance of (P31) value for abridged editions on Edition wikidata items, which at this point is my preference. However its also interesting to view how its been used from Q65920672's what links here. Memuarów części wszystkie (Q111594356) uses it as a value for has characteristic (P1552). In Memuary (Q11777334) it is used as a value of qualifier object has role (P3831) to the has edition or translation (P747) statement. On Tommy Thumb's Song Book (Q7819933) it is used as one of the P3831 qualifiers to HathiTrustID & Internet Archive ID but I'd suggest that item has issues. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 12:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Huw Diprose: I don't see the value from the edition level to state that the edition is abridged, it is just an edition. IMO, from the book level it makes a difference, not so much back the other way. An edition is just an edition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

how to indicate a "fausse adresse" ?

Hello, I don't know the bibliographic term in English - or other languages - for "fausse adresse (fr)", i.e. an intentionally fake adress (and name of printer) printed on a book, in past centuries, generally to evade censorship, or its consequences (prison, condemnation, loss of activity)...

I created an item to tag such books, but I have difficulties to add properties... fictitious place of publication (Q117336393) - so, Help ! : how do you call it, in languages other than French, and how to document the item, that would allow to query such books in the future ? Hsarrazin (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In German there are terms like "Scheinadresse" or "Tarnanschrift". I only found misinformation (Q13579947) as qualifier, not "fictional statement". --Kolja21 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

désinformation (Q13579947) is not appropriate, as it is not attempting to spread misinformation onto the public, just to evade censorship - as it was a very usual practice (1500-1800), there is a specific term in French, and I'm pretty sure there is also in all European countries with an old tradiction of Printers and Librarians... only, I don't know the term... Hsarrazin (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Censorship and pirated edition (Q2338167). I've found an article in the German Wikipedia about this topic: fictitious place of publication (Q1412375). This item and fictitious imprint (Q111907519) fits as qualifier. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

ohhhhh, thanks ! - I don't read German at all, so this was completely impossible for me to find :) Hsarrazin (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kolja21, I really do not understand why you put a different from (P1889) between fictitious imprint (Q111907519) and Guinea-Bissau at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Q141237) : I do not understand German, so I followed your advice, but fictitious imprint (Q111907519) is exactly what we call "fausse adresse" in French : it can be either a completely invented adress/printer's name (Pierre Marteau), or an usurped name (that of a place/printer of another country), or a fantasy adress "A Paphos, chez Vénus"

what it the difference between both, according to you, please ? could one be a subclass of the other ? Hsarrazin (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hsarrazin, fictitious imprint (Q111907519) is a subclass of fictional organization (Q14623646) while fictitious place of publication (Q1412375) is a subclass of fictional location (Q3895768). --Kolja21 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Imho the problem is the translation "fausse adresse". This term is ambiguous. Mostly fits fictitious imprint (Q111907519). Examples: a) fr:Pierre Marteau "est le nom d'un imprimeur fictif". b) fr:Traité théologico-politique: "... il le publie sans nom d'auteur et avec une fausse adresse d'éditeur". --Kolja21 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

the term "fausse adresse", in French, is used for all cases of deliberate wrong adress used on publications, whether only the place is false, or also the publisher's name, and whether it is invented (Pierre Marteau) or fantasy (A Paphos, chez Vénus), or using the name of another printer in another country... -> it refers to the "publication zone" of the description, not to the publication itself... Hsarrazin (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Queerlit ID

Hi! Here is a proposal for a property of the type authority data for Swedish LGBTQ literature if anyone wants to give advice, discuss or reflect? Best regards Tore Danielsson (WMSE) (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg ebook ID (P2034) constraints

Why can't this apply to works? I get it, that we want everything and its grandmother on the versions, but I think an exception can be made for this. For example, there are cases where we can't know what specific version is being hosted on Gutenberg, such as Aladdin O'Brien, which doesn't list any of the title page information, or the publisher data. So to connect that to a specific version of Aladdin O'Brien is misleading...

Furthermore, it doesn't look like they even care about versions like we do; their focus seems to be one ebook per work, indiscriminate to versions. If it's one ebook per work, then maybe it can sometimes be on the work item and not the version item. Scripts that use our Wikidata items need to get both the work data and the version data. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg typically alters their text, often to fit modern typographical convention, even when their text can be traced back to a specific source. Gutenberg editions are, therefore, really editions in their own right. I treat them as such, for example: Middlemarch (Q111272552). --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, your assumption that Gutenberg limits themselves to one ebook per work is incorrect. The Sophocles play Antigone exists here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. Gutenberg includes not only English works, but works in translation, both into English and into other languages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, well then I concede that point (I didn't take translations into account). PseudoSkull (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How to mark separate part of a book?

Some books are divided into parts. Here is an example: Infection Prevention and Control in Healthcare, Part II: Clinical Management of Infections, An Issue of Infectious Disease. It's a book that contains different articles. The book has at least 3 parts. The preface names those parts issues, but how to mark a Wikidata entity as a part? D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Identifiant Médiathèque Numérique CVS

Hi, as I can't ping the project, here is a message about a proposal to add a ID used by the service used in France by a few libraries for video on demand. Misc (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Property Proposal: state of transmission

Dear Project Participants,

may I direct your attention to another recent property proposal? Best, Jonathan Groß (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

publication date and multivolume books

How to deal with publication date (P577) and multi-volume books published over a long period of time? For volumes within a decade or century, it makes sense to use the decade/century item with qualifiers P580 (first volume) and P582 (last volume). But what if the publication crosses the century boundary (as in the case of Ottův slovník naučný (Q2041543) or Q121625294)? In Ottův slovník naučný (Q2041543) no value is used, in Q121625294 unknown value is used, neither of which seems quite right to me. Jklamo (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jklamo: I would simply use the millenium or above value with P580 and P582; I believe that the value in those qualifiers should take prevalence over anything that is in the main value . --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Which x_work to use for a book, and why so few books from a publisher

I understand the ontological reason for having x_work separate from book, but if I wanted to add the books from a particular publisher, would they go under written work (Q47461344) or creative work (Q17537576) hierarchies. And for the vast majority of books that are only ever produced in 1 edition from one publisher, does it really make sense to have 2 items for them, one for the work, one for the physical object? I came here because my military interests mean I'm interested in Osprey Publishing (Q2697821) who've produced 2000 odd short books over 60 years in long, narrow focus series which seem ideal for WD recording, but I was surprised that a query only showed 28 titles, with all sorts of instances, a really muddled dataset.

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?instanceLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
  {
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?instance WHERE {
      ?item wdt:P123 wd:Q2697821.
      ?item wdt:P31 ?instance.
    }
  }
}

Try it!

And the Fortress (Q113697822) series of 110 books only has 3 members here

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?instanceLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
  {
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?instance WHERE {
      ?item wdt:P179 wd:Q113697822.
      ?item wdt:P31 ?instance.
    }
  }
}

Try it!

Vicarage (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't use "book" because that word has too many different meanings. A "book" can be a particular work, an individual copy, a part of a longer work, a volume in a series. So we avoid the term "book". We use "work" (for the general) and "edition" (for a particular publication of that work). This has to be done because library databases do this. There will be a data item in a library database for the work, and a separate data item for each edition. In order to interface with library databases, we have to do the same. An "instance" is a particular copy, like a copy of Gutenberg Bible held in a specific collection, or a manuscript in a particular library.

The data item for a literary work is the general item, that covers properties not specific to any edition, such as the language of composition, date of first publication, author, and library IDs for the work. A publisher issues an edition of a work, and the publisher goes on the version, edition or translation (Q3331189) for the edition from that publisher. The data item for an edition carries all the data specific to that edition: date of publication, publisher, number of pages, place of publication, scans of that edition, etc.

Yes, some of the datasets are muddled, because people import data from Wikipedias without correcting it to match the Wikidata structure, or edit without understanding the concepts of "work" and "edition", or because the data was imported from WorldCat, whose database is very muddled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth maintaining the distinction between a work and an edition @Vicarage.

I understand the concern about adding complexity, however I think we can effectively SPARQL that problem away into a single query.

I don't know the series you're interested in, but from my own patch one surprise I've had is the range of formats, even off a single edition.

I've been listening to lots of works in an audiobook format, which I think we should keep distinct from other editions (print, ebook), but it still makes sense to have a single abstract record (the work) that we can use to unite all these and say we're talking about a fundamentally similar set of things with shared commonalities.

I wonder if your osprey books might have the same? Perhaps there was only one edition, but might you want to distinguish between audiobook edition, ebook editions and print in future? Or perhaps even translations if they were of international interest?

Plus, you never know there could be a second edition of interest emerged in the future.

The edition / work split seems like a really robust data model, even if it is a bit more work to create a d query IMO Huw Diprose (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

With only 1% of the Osprey books recorded, WD is no use for my military history work. By contrast Goodreads has recorded all of the Fortress series at https://www.goodreads.com/series/115345-osprey-fortress. I don't think I will be able to embark on adding them here, and focus on the fortifications themselves, which are well recorded here. Vicarage (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Publication Date Vs Inception

Hey folks.

@Pfadintegral and I have been having a conversation over here about how to use Inception and publication date on works and editions.

I note that you only have Inception under the work here and publication date on the edition, so I'd been assuming the work is an abstract that isn't published per say, and so doesn't have a publication date.

Pfadintegral has pointed out that publication date's description mentions it's only ever the first publication (so perhaps as with title or subtitle we could have one on both the work and updated values on the edition).

I note there are warnings when putting publisher details on works, but not publication dates.

So I sense there must be some prior conversations here.

What do bookfolk of wikidata recommend? Huw Diprose (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Publication date is for the date of publication. Inception is used for when the author started writing the work, and is not related to publication at all. There are some works whose inception was during the lifetime of the author, but were only published after the author died. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That was also my understanding. If there is a consensus on this, I would propose amending the project page to list both inception and publication date under "work item properties" and use a work where they are different as an example for both. Pfadintegral (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that would be really helpful! Huw Diprose (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Great thanks for the clarification @EncycloPetey! Huw Diprose (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Open access vs free to read

Notifying about the opened discussion since it is related to citation templates: Wikidata:Project chat#Open_access_vs_free_to_read. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Modeling specific chapters of books

Hi,

I wonder if there is any existing guidance on the best way to model chapters of a book. To explain my use case, I read a few books on movies and some are focused on specific movies analysis. For example, in Queer Muslim diasporas in contemporary literature and film, most chapters examine 1 single movie (sometimes 2), like chapter 5 is analysing My Brother the Devil (Q769753), etc, etc. I would like to connect the movie item with the book item (once created), if possible in a more granular way than just the book level.

One way is to add described by source (P1343) to the movie item with some qualifiers for chapter. For example, this is done on Star Trek: First Contact (Q221236) (I found only 10 items with that modeling). Another way would be to add several value on main subject (P921) at the book item, pointing to the movie items, again with proper qualifiers. This is done on Star Trek: The Art of John Eaves (Q107023900), minus qualifiers. A 3rd and 4th way is to create one item for each chapter, and connect them to either the edition (3rd way), or the work (4th way), and add main subject (P921) for each, and/or described by source (P1343) to the chapter. For example, this is the approach used for “Machines Making Machines? How Perverse.” Racism, (White) Sexual Anxiety, the Droids of Star Wars and the Prequel Trilogy (Q120761367) (one of the few item using that scheme, but I was lazy and limited my search to movies).

I searched the archives and found no consensus on the best way to achieve that and in fact few discussions. And while each method would work (more or less) for my purpose, I would prefer to not have a bespoke system for my specific needs. I searched with a few queries, and while I found some example for each scheme, none was overwhelmingly used.

I personally lean on option 3 (separate item for chapter, linked to editions). This is more natural, easier to query, allow to add specific value on each chapter. However, that also mean that the list of chapter would be duplicated for each edition. I am not sure how a mix of 3 and 4 would work (eg, link to the work level item by default, unless there is reason to have a different number of chapter at the edition level). Or maybe have it on both, and have some bot that do the work of filling editions based on the work level information.

So have people opinions on that ? Was it already discussed to death and I missed it ? Misc (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(New) related property proposal : Plate

Hello, Wikidata:Property proposal/Plate may be relevant to this WikiProject, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Property_proposal: BISAC_Subject_Heading

Wikidata:Property_proposal/BISAC_Subject_Heading

Property proposal: EDItEUR Thema id

Wikidata:Property proposal/EDItEUR Thema id Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Property_proposal: ONIX_Subject_Scheme_id

Wikidata:Property_proposal/ONIX_Subject_Scheme_id Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Property proposal:Diktyon

Comments are welcome at Wikidata:Property proposal/Diktyon. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between manuscripts and works

Hello,

while trying to improve our data on ancient written works, I sometimes come across items that conflate manuscript (Q87167) and written work (Q47461344). A prominent example is Cologne Mani-Codex (Q657420). Obviously it would be a good idea to create distinct items for (a) the work (as an abstract concept) and (b) the textual witness it is transmitted in. While this distinction may seem artificial to some, it is in my opinion the best way going forward. Examples how to do this are Berlin Chronicle (Q21100459) which is transmitted on Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection, P 13296 (Q21100575) and Alexandrian World Chronicle (Q21100150) which is transmitted on Goleniscev Papyrus (Q21100168).

The reason I'm writing this here is that I am unsure what to do with existing sitelinks. Wikipedia articles notoriously conflate textual witnesses and the works they transmit. I can think of two solutions:

1. Keep sitelinks on the old item and make it a dedicated item for the work (as this is what most readers will be interested in)
2. Keep sitelinks on the old item and make it a dedicated item for the textual witness (which is often used as illustration).

Thoughts? Jonathan Groß (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that it is a complex problem, I would have a slight preference for 2: when a sitelink conflates many concepts which have distinct items in Wikidata, I usually try to move the sitelink to the item which corresponds more precisely to the title and the incipit of the sitelink. Since articles regarding manuscripts and the work(s) inside them usually are titled with the name of the manuscript and have an incipit like "X is a manuscript etc.", I think 2 is slightly better and probably also the most intuitive one for users to be applied. Anyway, disentangling these will require a lot of effort :( --Epìdosis 08:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a subpage for these cases and document what we're about to do there? Checking the items from Category:Papyrus (Q7356868) would be a good starting point. Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, a Database report could help listing items that have both instance of (P31)written work (Q47461344) and instance of (P31)manuscript (Q87167). Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a SPARQL query doing just that: https://w.wiki/7U7n

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
  {
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item WHERE {
      ?item p:P31 ?statement0.
      ?statement0 (ps:P31/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q47461344.
      ?item p:P31 ?statement1.
      ?statement1 (ps:P31/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q87167.
    }
  }
}

Try it!

Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Many relatively empty items, such as Codex Speculum (Q5140244), suffer from the same problem, cf. e. g. w:de:Diskussion:Codex Speculum. HHill (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

New properties proposed: Pinakes IDs

Allow me to direct your attention to this proposal by Epìdosis. Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Add link please

Can someone familiar with page translation please add a link to Wikidata:WikiProject Manuscripts/Data Model under the "Manuscript Properties" section on Wikidata:WikiProject_Books? Thanks! PKM (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)