Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
On this page, old discussions are archived. See: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.

Requesting your thoughts[edit]

Hello all and thank you for the work on this project!

I'm helping to prepare some blog content which will include comments about this project. I'm curious to hear how project contributors think on a couple of points (below). If you have thoughts on these please do share here or leave a comment on my talk page.

Riesengrey (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CC Tructho

poetry (Q482) vs poem (Q5185279)[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'm confused about poetry (Q482) and poem (Q5185279). I understand that the first one is a literary form, while the other one is the name given to a work with that form. Having both items would be like having two items for "novel", one to refer to the literary form, and the other to refer to a work with that form. We say "Lord of The Ring is a novel", and "Lord of the Ring belongs to the novel genre", while we say "Demain, dès l'aube" is a poem, but "Demain, dès l'aube" belongs to the poetry genre. I'm not against keeping both, since lots of languages seem to have two different words to express "poetry" and "a poem" (contrary to "novel" for example), but shouldn't we clarify a little bit more that one is a form, and should be used with form of creative work (P7937), while the other is a class, and should be used with instance of (P31) ? Am I missing something ? CaLéValab (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON, EncycloPetey, MartinPoulter: I'm pinging some contributors that look active one this page, in hope to have an answer for this one. The poetry ontology is very messy, and I would like to correct it. But before that, I would like to be sure I make no mistake, which starts by making sure I understood subtleties like the one explained on my previous message. CaLéValab (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between poetry (Q482) and poem (Q5185279) is a difference between a style and a specific object. It is more like the difference between drama and play, but the WD items for that set of labels is also thoroughly muddled.
Consider that The Lord of the Rings contains poetry (Q482), but it is not a poem (Q5185279). The book Psalms (Q41064) is poetry (Q482), but it is not a poem (Q5185279). Most classical Greek dramas are written as poetry (Q482), but they are plays / dramas, not poem (Q5185279). There is a distinction in what these words mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
poetry (Q482) is the counterpart of prose (Q676), and neither of these is the form for a work, but is a compositional style. Novels may be written in either compositional style, Epics can be written in either style, Plays can be written in either style, and even Poems can be written in either style. Neither poetry (Q482) nor prose (Q676) is a form, but both are a style of composition that can be applied to many different works, and the same work might be translated from one form to another, as I have seen translations of Greek works in verse (both plays and poems) translated into English prose. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EncycloPetey. So poetry (Q482) is a genre, not a form, right ? Or is it even something else, like a tone (Q1366327) ? Should it be used with the property genre (P136) or another property ? CaLéValab (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, poetry (Q482) is neither a genre nor a form. It is a compositional style independent of both form and genre. Any form or genre could be constructed in poetry (Q482). I do not know whether there is a property applicable, but note that a single work might be written in poetry, or prose, or both, and different editions of the same work might change the compositional style from poetry to prose, or vice versa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel question: what about using either of these as P31? Can we say that poetry (Q482) subclass of (P279) poem (Q5185279)? --Infovarius (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, poetry (Q482) is definitely NOT subclass of (P279) poem (Q5185279). ANY form or genre of work can be written as poetry (Q482), whether a play, an opera, an essay, a short story, a poem, etc. Style of composition is a separate factor from any form or genre. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And no, poetry (Q482) should not be used with instance of (P31), since an individual work can exist in editions that are composed as poetry (Q482) and the same work can exist in editions that are not.
Additionally, a work written in poetry (Q482) might be a literary work (Q7725634), a musical composition (Q207628), or a play (Q25379) (dramatic work). These are not subclasses of poetry (Q482), nor is poetry (Q482) a subclass of those kinds of works. Compositional style is independent of both form and genre, and does not apply to any particular group of works, but can apply to all of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant poem (Q5185279) subclass of (P279) poetry (Q482) which was true before CaLeValab's revolution. Also not true that poetry (Q482) has no subclasses even now, see e.g. narrative poetry (Q474090). --Infovarius (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: not that either. Since poem (Q5185279) is a literary form (Q4263830) and poetry (Q482) could apply to something that is not literature. And thank you for calling me a revolutionary. As a French person, this is quite a compliment ;). CaLéValab (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: We don't have novel (Q8261) subclass of (P279) prose (Q676), so why should we have poem (Q5185279) subclass of (P279) poetry (Q482)? Both prose (Q676) and poetry (Q482) are compositional styles that can be applied to ANY form of literature. As far as narrative poetry (Q474090), I agree that there is a lot of confusion, and a lot of cleanup is needed. narrative poetry (Q474090) is an intersection of the "poetry" compositional style with "narrative" intent. An essay can also be narrative, and so can a short story. "Narrative" is a storytelling style that can be used in many forms of literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Solidest:, I still try to understand what is poetry (I thought I understood, but after your comment, it seems like I didn't). Do you define poetry like I did, which is "literary style characterized by a strong expressiveness of words" (the description on the entity was added by me, and it seems like the wikipedia articles attached to the entity also define poetry this way). In which case, isn't poetry instance of literary style (Q109598321) better than poetry instance of literary form (Q4263830) ? CaLéValab (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find the proper metaclass for poetry (Q482). I couldn't find anything existing on WD in English, but instead I found pretty close meaning in Russian that covers it. It is "wordness" (Q4423833). It groups any types of creative works, as "object of thought" conveyed then through words. That is, it combines all written works (literature (Q8242), letters, diaries, etc), all oral works (rhetoric (Q81009)), and probably something in between, like folklore (Q36192). I'm not sure that there is a proper word for this term in English. As for metaclasses of that, I guess the closest one to use with it would be "narrative form" (at least in Russian). But "narrative form (Q6630149)" (looking at the linked categories and list) in English seems to be used in a different way - it's more of a narrowly literary category that partially duplicates the literary form (Q4263830). So I am no longer sure if I have changed that item (Q6630149) correctly.
I don't really like the term "literary style" because it essentially refers to the realm of literature and by and large to some light "descriptive forms" (styles/methods) within specific major literary forms by individual authors. I'm not sure if it's any different from writing style (Q2243831), as the only French article describes exactly that. So, as far as I see it, it belongs to the realm of narrative text, whereas poetry rather encompasses the realm of conveying thought through words, and it would be more appropriately described as "form" rather than "style". Solidest (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think of poetry (Q482) and prose (Q676) the same way that musicians think about instrumentation. A musical work can be "scored" or "arranged" for orchestra, or choir, or solo vocals with accompaniment. It is still the same musical work, but the manner is which it is presented has changed. The same can be true of writing: it may be composed in poetry or in prose, or a combination of the two. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably play the same musical work/composition (Q105543609) with different instrumentation (P870). The musical composition (as the 'intellectual work') is still the same, but when it's an actual interpretation, work played with some specific instrumentation - the audio recording (Q3302947) is used if it's a record (Q107435521) or musical performance (Q6942562) if it's occurrence (Q1190554). I'm not sure that such an approach can be used in literature. You can't make poetry or prose from the same set of words (written or spoken). Poetry/prose is more than just a method of putting it down on paper, or a way of telling the same words. Solidest (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting translation. The same work can be written in different words, and those words may be prose or poetry. On en.WS we have translations of Pindar's Victory Odes (Q1347171) that include both poetic translations and prose translations. Whether they are prose or poetry, they are the same works, just in a different translation. And as for your other question, yes, the FRBR includes levels for specific editions, print runs, or even individual copies held in specific collections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really forgot about that. So ideally we need a separate property like instrumentation (P870), something like "style of wording" or as you said "compositional style"? And while we don't have one, where should we put the poetry/prose? form of creative work (P7937) seems most appropriate, or at most has quality (P1552) (where in the music model we put everything excessive that has no its own property). Solidest (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to both of you. I'm not sure "poetry" could be reduced to "opposite of prose". We have poetic prose (Q15890340), which would be oxymoronic. From what I understood from the Wikipedia articles attached to "poetry", "poetry" is defined as a way of using words to make them mean more than what they mean in a prosaic way. "Poetry" would then be the opposite of "prosaic style" but not "prose". So, like EncycloPetey said, it is neither a genre nor a form, but more like a "style" i.e. "a way to use words to express meaning". So I'm not against creating another property for "style", where we could put "poetry", "formal", "informal", "vulgar", etc. CaLéValab (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to correlate the discussed properties for related areas of creative/art spheres and built such a table:
Sphere / Art Genre class Type class Form class
Music music genre (Q188451) "music by" metacategory musical form (Q862597)
musical work/composition (Q105543609)
type of musical work/composition (Q107487333)
  • song
  • sonata, ...
song type (Q107356781) (for now it's a general category of different species that has yet to be divided) song form (Q1824109)
"Word-based art form" (Narration?) ? ? narrative form (Q6630149) ?

(poetry / prose)

"word-based work" / "narrated work"
  • folklore
  • "genre of folklore"
  • "folklore by country", ...
"Word-based written art form"


literary genre (Q223393) sub-set of literature (Q109551565) literary form (Q4263830)
literary work (Q7725634)
type of literary work (Q110169000)
  • novel
  • poem, ...
  • "novel by country", ...
"Word-based spoken art form"

(Rhetoric / Oral art)

? ? ?
"spoken entry"
  • speech
  • monologue
  • rap, ...
? ?
This is based on the most detailed model that we have on WD for creative arts = music. This would also be valid for film, dance, theatre. For many spheres this kind of model is already in the use, with slight deviations and many blank spots. I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that in general we should workd to build such a correspondence between the spheres of creative works on these parameters, and we should develop the spheres like this (with a room for improvement). And speaking of poetry/prose, this seems to be the most undeveloped area at the moment. It also seems to me that introducing "Style" would only complicate things and add unnecessary overlap, because most of the time it is something completely subjective and when it's something more established, it's rather more properly to be called a genre. But "theme" would probably be a more useful addition. Such a thing is already used in the video game model: video game theme (Q42907216). Solidest (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completing your table with new items CaLéValab (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally started Wikidata:WikiProject Arts and moved this table there. Feel free to join and expand it with existing items or with any future plans. Solidest (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Canonical" corpora[edit]

OOjs UI icon error.svg WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Hi all,

I'm asking for advice following a short discussion on Epìdosis' talk page, as the case isn't covered in the current Project's recommendations. I am currently working on the various works that are included in Moralia (Q651941), a collection of 70ish treaties on various subjects written by Plutarch (Q41523). The collection was assembled across the centuries and is found as such in manuscripts; in all probability however Plutarch didn't considered that his treaties were part of a unique collection. As Corpus Aristotelicum (Q1054239) or Hippocratic Corpus (Q1135155), Moralia (Q651941) is the result of the textual transmission way more than its author's will. Currently, the relation between a treaty and the collection is modelled with published in (P1433), which considering the way that the collection was assembled strikes me as misleading. I would personnaly gladly replace it with part of (P361), but perhaps other properties might be a better fit. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that part of (P361) fits more than published in (P1433) in this case. Every work included by tradition in a canonical set (such as Corpus Aristotelicum (Q1054239) or Hippocratic Corpus (Q1135155)) is part of it. In my opinion, this case is very similar to that of a book (e.g. Book of Genesis (Q9184)) of the different biblical canons (such as the Tanakh (Q83367) or the Bible (Q1845)) and each book of the Bible is actually recorded in Wikidata as part of a section of the Bible (even if the exact section depends on the different canon to be considered and many books of the Bible are currently not correctly related). I would use published in (P1433) only for a work by an author published or to be published in a miscellaneous volume (such as conference papers, manuals with chapters by different authors, or papers in a journal). A different case is an anthology of texts collected by an editor. I think that it should be modelled with a work representing the anthology whose responsibility is related to the editor and to which the selected texts (e.g. one or more Plutarco's treaties, but not all the treaties of its canon and other texts by different authors) should be related by part of (P361). The item representig the antology at the work level should have also a has edition or translation (P747) for any of its editions. In the last case I feel that, instead of part of (P361), a property to express that the work is not natively or traditionally part of a canon, but that it was added to a newly created set by the explicit willingness of a specific person (the editor) would fit better. I do not know if it already exists. --Carlobia (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with @Carlobia:, the reasoning makes very much sense. --Epìdosis 19:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title of a book be translated for its label in other languages?[edit]

Is there a convention for translating the title of a book to other languages for using it in those languages' labels? Here's an example so that I get my point clear: Suppose there's a book that is published with its title in Spanish. I know the Spanish label of this book should be the title, but my question is: Should the label in other languages be (1) the translation of the title in those languages or (2) the original title?

Rdrg109 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

I would say only of if it has been translated in reliable sources (official translation published - sometimes there are several of them btw), or title translated in some publications whereas the book is not translated (for example, Q7732034 has (unfortunately) not been translated to English, but there are some articles which list the English name). Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about the work item for the book, the editions of that book, the instances of the book, or something else? I would not give the same answer to each question. For major works, most national library databases will have a translated title for the work database record, but they usually will not translate the title of a specific edition. For a work data item here, I would give the local language title (if one exists), but include the original title (if known) provided that it's written in the same alphabet or a transcription system suitable for that language as used by the national database from the country that uses that language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example of an article in German: [The opus fantasy. Fantasied work as a metafantasy in the creative process] (Q33473649). The English translation is added in square brackets. Imported from PubMed (Q180686). --Kolja21 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 with both Ymblanter and EncycloPetey. If by book you mean work, then it *can* be translated (providing sources), if you mean edition it probably shouldn't be translated. Plus, label and title shouldn't be confused (it's two different things, and we have title (P1476) - and others - for the "true" title so we can allow some latitude and flexibility in the labels). Of course, as always with bibliographic data, there can be exceptions and complications (indeed transcription and transliteration are an other can of worms, but that's beside the original question here).
@Kolja21: interresting case, this is maybe and kind of acceptable as a degraded solution but ideally it should be replaced with the original title in German ("Die Opus-Phantasie: Das phantasierte Werk als Metaphantasie im kreativen Prozeß" apparently according to ).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with multiples ISBN on items?[edit]

OOjs UI icon error.svg WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.


Tough question (that we talked about already but never answered), not sure we can have an answer but I hope some cataloguing aficionados and wikidatian modeler could help.

First, on Wikidata we have a lot of items with multiples ISBN. This simple query gives 4872 results right now (and only for ISBN-13 (P212)).

Most are errors that need to be corrected (including but not milited to: splitting the item in two items for each editions, removing the ISBNs if they don't belong on the item and/or put the rank to deprecated if one the ISBN was printed wrong) but then, in rare case, some specific editions indeed have multiples ISBN (like Q40220865, Les manuscrits à peintures en France (Q109671685) or Dix mille saints (Q108369181)).

This could be very confusing (and external catalog are sometimes confused). Could we imagine a way to indicated that these cases are not errors? (for instance with a qualifier?)

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imho adding a qualifier like publisher (P123) should be enough. It's the same problem with authors and authority control. We use qualifiers like named as (P1810), indicating that the second ID is not a duplicate, but lists like Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P227#"Single value" violations are unable to differentiate. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolja21: adding publisher (P123) in qualifier is enough to remove the constraint but not enough to differentiate multiple values by error and multiple values on purpose. My iea is to have something to make the difference so we can built system (queries or otherwise) to have a list of "true" errors without false-positive. More importantly it would let the user know this is on purpose. But following your idea, I refined the query to only list items with ISBN with publisher in qualifier: Now we have less results (I'll clean them soon) but there is still both error and correct cases mixed in these results. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Participants?[edit]


Posting the previous message, it seems Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Participants is too large to be pinged.

In itself, it's a tool problem more than a list problem. Regardless, I had a quick look and saw multiple inactive accounts. On 137 users listed, around 30 seems to have been inactive for at least a year (and I've see one user who choosed to disappear and one who only made one edit on Wikidata).

Should we clean this list and move the inactive persons to a "former participants" page? (not sure it will be enough to allow a ping but at least this list would be more up-to-date). And if so on what criteria? Inactive for at least a year (I think we have a tool for that somewhere, no?) or just some lighter clean-up (like the two edge case I mentioned above).

Since I can't ping everybody, @Sic19, Epìdosis, CaLéValab, Hsarrazin, Salgo60, Dcflyer: I know that you're the most active on this group recently, what do you think?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that seems a good idea...
also, since we asked for a fixing of the problem for projects exceeding 50 names, and nothing was done, because it's a feature, it's not a bug... I suggest maybe we divide the list in 50-names batches (after cleaning)... ->
do you think it would work ? Hsarrazin (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I  Support the proposal, of course. --Epìdosis 20:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cover image[edit]

Is there a way to indicate cover image of a book? For example has the cover image, but I can't see a way to connect them. P736 cover art by doesn't seem suitable as the cover was designed by a person who used and referenced that particular image. Thanks HelsKRW (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cover image ought to be the cover of that edition, not a work of art that is included in the cover image. If the cover of the book is not copyrighted, and if you can extract the cover image for the book, that can be used as an image (P18) for the edition with object has role (P3831) as a qualifier. However, in this case, it seems the original is copyrighted, so we wouldn't be able to use it or the derivative cover. The author/publisher may be required to change the cover. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Property proposals[edit]

i'd also add Wikidata:Property proposal/літературний редактор to a list of related proposals.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about book (Q571)?[edit]

I miss some guidance on how book (Q571) should or shouldn't be used. Property_talk:P31#None-of_constraint:_book? mentions that it's problematic or at least disputed. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonas kork: don't use it, this item is ill-defined and problematic. You can use literary work (Q7725634), version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) or individual copy of a book (Q53731850) instead. CaLéValab (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no problem. I suggest someone (who is minimally more familiar with this than me) add a note to the project page. --Jonas kork (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a note in the discussion page for book (Q571). Where on this project's page would you place it? The project page is about the project, not a collection point for discussions (which occur here). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The project has "Books" in the title. The item carrying that label might be seen as an obvious object for this WikiProject. Since Q571 is contentious, I think it's helpful to give visitors and newcomers a heads-up about the problem. I only stumbled across it by accident and assumed this would be good place to find more guidance. To be honest I don't check all discussion pages for items (or properties) that I put into statements. --Jonas kork (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should every book be split into two items (work and edition)?[edit]

I'm familiar with a similar two-fold structure from a different subject/ database, but I'm not sure what the general stance on Wikidata is. If a book was published only once, in a single language (at least so far/ that we know of), would we just need a single item = instance of version, edition, or translation (Q3331189)?

Side note: It's unfortunate how the project page talks about the 4 levels of FRBR, and how Wikidata combines two of them, and then goes to sum up: "Thus a two-layer framework (...) has been used." It would be better to mention that the FRBR "item" level has been dropped, or is of no concern in the following description. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonas kork: as of today, lots of "work" items don't have associated "edition" items, and lots of "edition" items don't have an associated "work" item. From a pure database point of view, the best would be to have both a "work" and an "edition" item for each published book, but that would be a lot of work for maybe no tangible upside (to be debated). At least, each item should be correctly linked to the wikisource and wikipedia articles, either directly, or indirectly through the associated "work" item or "edition" items, thanks to the edition or translation of (P629) or has edition or translation (P747) properties. CaLéValab (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, if there is a Wikisource copy, but nothing on Wikipedia, there may only be an "edition" data item, and if there is a Wikipedia article, but nothing on Wikisource, there is likely a "work" data item. If it exists in both locations, or if there is reason to be coordinating multiple editions, then there should definitely be a work data item and a data item for each edition. As CaLéValab says, sometimes the practicality is that no one has had the time to ensure both things exist and are properly separate with only data apropriate to the type of data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, makes sense. I think it would be helpful if this clarification found its way onto to project page. --Jonas kork (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

form of creative work (P7937)[edit]

What did Wikiproject Books do before the existence of this property? Lectrician1 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Argued, mostly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"as told to"[edit]

Is there an existing qualifier, property, or other method to indicate an author/contributor's role is "as told to"? E.g. Tibet is My Country, by Tubten Jigme Norbu (Q1385565), as told to Heinrich Harrer (Q84211). Or The Big Love (Q7717703), by Florence Aadland (Q111175143), as told to Tedd Thomey (Q16028255). Or The Trials of Jimmy Hoffa: An Autobiography, as told to Donald I. Rogers (Q111175352). Two names generally credited on the book cover, one the originator, the other the recorder/interviewer/compiler/editor. -Animalparty (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description would be scribe (Q916292) or amanuensis (Q499134) but I am not sure how you would record that a person held that role in relation to a work on that work's data item. editor (P98) is the closest property besides author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty, EncycloPetey: I would have thought that author (P50) will often be appropriate, as they were the person who actually wrote the book. But the generic contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) is also available, if you believe they only had secondary responsibility for the text. As for explanatory qualifiers, object has role (P3831) = ghostwriter (Q623386) or alternatively interviewer (Q46034607) (or both) might be appropriate; perhaps together with object has role (P3831) = interviewee (Q55534929) for the nominal author. Jheald (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What value should I use for edition or translation of (P629) in editions?[edit]

Hello everyone! I'm new in the domain of books in Wikidata. I have a question.

Suppose a book has 5 editions. Each of the editions have unique values for ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. This is how I would handle this scenario: I would create an item for each of the editions and I would add instance of (P31) version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) and use the properties ISBN-10 (P957) and ISBN-13 (P212) in each of those 5 items. Since they are editions, I would also add edition or translation of (P629), but I'm wondering:

  • What value should I use for the property edition or translation of (P629) in those 5 editions?
    • Should I create a Wikidata item for the concept of the book itself that has been improved over the course of the editions?

Rdrg109 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We call the main item for the concept a "work", and yes there should be a data item for the work. For "books" the value of instance of (P31) will usually be literary work (Q7725634) if it is fiction, but it could be a scholarly work (Q55915575) if it is an expert nonfiction "book", or musical work/composition (Q105543609) if the "book" is a musical composition. There are some other values, and it really depends on the kind of "book" that is meant. The term "book" is very vague. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add multiple title (P1476) statements for a work that has multiple translations?[edit]

Suppose a written work (Q47461344) is published as the 1st edition by the author in English (Q1860), that 1st edition is translated into Portuguese (Q5146), French (Q150) and Russian (Q7737) and each of the translations is assigned a different title in the target language. Under the guidelines of WikiProject Books, we would now have 5 Wikidata items

  1. The work which has the statement instance of (P31) written work (Q47461344)
  2. The 1st edition in English (Q1860)
  3. The translation of the 1st edition in Portuguese (Q5146)
  4. The translation of the 1st edition in French (Q150)
  5. The translation of the 1st edition in Russian (Q7737)

My question: Should the item for the written work contain multiple title (P1476) statements for the title of the edition in English (Q1860) and the title of the translations too (i.e. Portuguese (Q5146), French (Q150) and Russian (Q7737))?

Rdrg109 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the work data item, title (P1476) is for the "original" title of the work. Translations of the title into other languages should not be included on the primary data item for the work. Titles of translations should appear on the data items for those translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about situations where you have a Latin book from say the 16th century where the printed title begins with words which generally are not considered part of the title. For example, the 1680 edition of Boethius is titled: Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii v.c. et inl. ex cons. ord. exmag. off. atque patricii Consolationis philosophiae libros quinque but the title as we know it is: De consolatione philosophiae. - Kosboot (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some works, there is a standard scholarly title. But you are correct, some Latin works will have lengthy titles because of past titling practices. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling written work when there is a different number of books/edition between translation[edit]

Hi, I stumbled on a thorny case. My Brother's Husband (Q22128978) is a manga published in 4 books in Japan. In France, the split was kept identical, but while adding the french editions, I noticed that the english translation was published in 2 volumes (volume 1 being 1 and 2 of the original), which mean I incorrectly placed the edition. I wasn't able to find guidance in the project page, nor in the discussion pages, mostly because I have no idea on what to search exactly. Does anyone have a example where this is handled I could look at ? --Misc (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P1922 for work or edition?[edit]


I wrote a message on Property talk:P1922 in 2017 but I forgot about it a bit and only two people left a comment.

The general question is: where should we use first line (P1922)? For work? edition? both? only one?

My opinion is that is probably should be on edition only but I would love to have more insight on this question.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vigneron, if you look at the given examples "work" is the standard (Q208460#P1922) since you don't want to repeat the first line over and over again or click through the editions to find it. On the other hand you might need the property for a differing edition or differing translation. So imho P1922 is for works and editions. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: single-value constraint (Q19474404) should be removed since this property can be used for different languages. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of a work can be different in different editions. For example s:en:Thanatopsis has a different first line in different editions, even though it is the same poem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first line in any language for a translation will be specific to that translation. If you are adding the first line from a French translation, that first line belongs on the data item for that translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you had discussed this first before deleting the beginning of the Odyssey (Q35160) in German ("that belongs on the data item for Weiher's translation"). There are hundreds of German editions of Odyssey (Q35160). Nobody wants to click through dozens of items only to find out that there is probably no first line (P1922) on the edition item. So imho it's helpful and wise to collect first line (P1922) on the work item adding the most famous version and it's translation with the name of the translator. Otherwise all the examples given in Property:P1922#P1855 are wrong. Non of the examples is an edition item. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Would you please stop deleting quotations! You don't even add an edition item and move the quotation. You only give orders and delete. This is unacceptable. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my responsibility to track down all the publication data for you. You have the data; I do not. If you decide to do something without community approval, it is on you to clean up the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not create data items for first lines, we create them for editions. If you have information about an edition, then create that data item. I am not going to create a data item for a single line from a text without knowing any of the publication data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an arrogant answer. It fits to your misuse of the reverse button. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolja21, EncycloPetey, Kolja21: I know P1922 is currently used on a lot work items (but not mostly, only the 6th and 11th most, see which means that the given examples are not representative by the way, it need to be updated) and I'm not sure it's a good thing. An incipit is written while a work is unwritten, so it's not really logical. It's especially not good when there is several incipit with no references and/or no qualifier to distinguish them (see Q19048723#P1922 for instance). For the context, on the French Wikisource we are looking to reuse Wikidata and it's a bit problematic.
My point of view is that we should only have the original (whatever it means) incipit on the work (like we do for original title) and put the incipit of the edition on the item of the said edition (and thus we could keep single-value constraint (Q19474404) which is already respected in 96.5% of the uses). And we should probably have a reference constraint (as a suggestion, at least as a first step). What do you think?
EncycloPetey: I kind of agree with Kolja21, you should at the very least wait for this discussion to be over to remove them. That said, Kolja21, since we have no data (we don't even know if this is a real incipit), it's hard to move them anywhere if you don't know anything (which is exactly why I'm asking for references ;) ). In any case, please keep it civil.
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: on certain items, mainly old work whose text isn't entirely secure (but I imagine you could have the same thing with works that were revised by their author), we may have multiple incipit/explicit (e.g. on Q21774084 or Q111021417). I don't know if something more flexible that single-value constraint (Q19474404) exists to deal with that. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or incipits for different parts of a work, e. g. prologue and main text, which might not always be present together in all manuscripts of a given work. See also Richard Sharpe: Titulus ISBN 978-2-503-51258-7. HHill (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We would need criteria for which "original". The first line of Thanatopsis (Q7710153) (in its first publication: Thanatopsis (Q111820194)) was added by the editor, and was not part of the poem until it was edited and printed. The author didn't write it. So, first published copy isn't necessarily a good choice. And even if we go be first publication, for novels that were serialized in a magazine before being printed as a book, do we use the first installment of the serialized edition, or the first "book" edition, or the author's manuscript? There are many, many reasons and examples where the first line (and the last line) should be placed on only a specific edition. I see that A Clockwork Orange (Q692557) has a "last line", but that line does not appear in the US edition because the US editor removed the last chapter of the book. For H. G. Wells' The Time Machine: An Invention (Q627333) the first line is different in each of the two 1895 editions (one published by Heinemann and one published by Holt). In any event, none of the current examples show the use of this property on a work for a line from a translation of the work. If we put the incipit from translations on the work data item as well, then we could have thousands of such incipit on the Odyssey (Q35160). There are potentially 100's of languages, some of which have more than 100 different published translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]