Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books

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

misuse of NNL work ID (P3959)[edit]

Every instance thus far where I have come across NNL work ID (P3959), it has been misused. This property is supposed to link to work identifiers from work data items, but what I'm finding is that it links to copy records of Hebrew translations from the work data item, which should never happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

make it clearer in the description? maybe look to add/suggest a constraint that flags the addition/use as incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I also noticed what you say EncycloPetey, but not reading hebrew, I did not dare remove them. Do you think I should ?
in fact, do you know if there are real work IDs in NNL catalog, or only editions ids (like in many libraries) ? if there are not, maybe rephrase the property as "id for an edition" ? (in all languages) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If you follow the links, you get the library record, which includes the standard library catalog headings in English. Without a single exception, every single record I've come across includes a "...--Translations into Hebrew" header, which means it is not an authority record for the original work. I honestly don't know in the NNL catalog has any work IDs or authority records, but I certainly haven't seen any linked. So the way in with the property is being used does not match its description in Wikidata at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
mmmmh. no, in fact, I get the standard library catalog heading in hebrew ([http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/?func=direct&con_lng=heb&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=001251501 ex. here from Don Quixote (Q480)'s first NNL link). And when I click on the "English" button to go to the english interface, I get an English page that invites me to make a search, not the En version of the notice. But what I can clearly see is that there is a place set, and a date... which means it is an edition ^^
almost all NNL work ID (P3959) data were added by a single user @זאב קטן: (3614/3743 from NavelGazer data. - which means if we can agree with them, it would be much easier...
is there someone who understands hebrew on the Books project, who could search the database, and maybe help us here ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Look about halfway down the listings you mentioned (try the second, third, etc items). You'll see catalog information in English such as "Fiction--Translations into Hebrew". I just looked at the listings on Don Quixote (Q480) that you mentioned and the problem is clearly visible to me. I'm not sure why you're not seeing it, and no, you don't have to click on the "English" button to see the cataloging information. The items are standard in English, and are placed among the Hebrew catalog information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nahum, Dovi: Are you or any of your heWS colleagues able to shed light on this topic?  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the NNL has "works" as such in its database, only records of editions. I don't know what "NNL work ID" should link to. I believe the NNL ID property should link to the edition(s) that exist in the library, because that is the place where the information about the work is stored at this library. This at least has been my personal experience with their database.--Nahum (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Then it sounds (and looks to me) as though what the NNL database has are recording of its specific holdings, which would mean specific copies of books rather than works or editions. If that is indeed what it lists, then we have no framework yet for including them on Wikidata. You could argue that the listing could also be treated as editions (or translations), but those would require listing as separate data items rather than inclusion on the data item for the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm sorry, I only happened across this just now. I'm bilingual English/Hebrew, and very active in cataloging books with these systems. I'm also doing this in cooperation with the Israel National Library cataloging staff. so, I'll be glad to try to clarify anything, as well as I can.
For now, I'll just say that National Library of Israel ID (P949) is parallel to: VIAF ID (P214) while NNL work ID (P3959) is parallel to: LCOC LCCN (bibliographic) (P1144). "authority records" for works are at- National Library of Israel ID (P949). -- Shilonite (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Every use of NNL work ID (P3959) I've come across is using it as parallel to VIAF ID (P214), which (as you say) is incorrect. The name is also confusing, since "work" has a specific meaning in WikiProject_Books --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't get back to you till now (i'm not very well...). I understand what you are saying, but please, so we would both ‘be on the same page’, try to examine the cataloging that I have done, and see if it agrees with your method.
If it does, and I understand that we are both working by the same method, then I will go back and correct whatever you find erroneous. If not please point out the differences to me.
For example what's your opinion about this: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q20278655&diff=next&oldid=600585790 . ...and in general, what Ive done with that book. I'm asking to learn, if perhaps I've misunderstood.
thank you, Shilonite (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Distinguishing the types of digital text[edit]

In book scholarship there are crucial differences between types of editions, serving different scholarly purposes. See for example these course notes. To take a practical example, a Project Gutenberg edition of a book gives you the electronic text but does not show you what the pages looked like, whereas Archive.org or Google Books usually provide visual scans of the book (plus uncorrected OCR). Which you want to use depends on whether your interest is in readable text or in the exact layout and typography (or handwriting) of the original). full work available at (P953) is not specific enough to tell the user what the link will provide, so we need to express these different types. One list given to me by an academic has these core types:

These could be used in instance of (P31) statements, but my interest is in using them to distinguish the different digital versions of a text in the Wikidata entry for an edition. It seems like the most appropriate way to do this is with the qualifier object has role (P3831). See Political Disquisitions (1775 edition) (Q42788256) for an example, where I represent that all 3 volumes of this edition of this book are available from the Oxford Text Archive in a detailed text edition while page scans of individual volumes are available from other sources. I'm feeling my way here, so I welcome other perspectives and improvements. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: So I don't presume or misread ... can you more express how you see these being used. Are you looking to use these as qualifiers for full work, or are you looking to use these as the base instance of (P31)? Above in your notes are classifications there are various types of new editions or secondary, or maybe tertiary, reproductions.

Then I suppose I am trying to figure how/where reproductions like enWS and Gutenberg's works would fall where I have considered them per the edition published at the time, though are really becoming editions on their own, which does that then mean we shouldn't link them to those editions as they are there own derivatives. [We so need professional guidance]  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, now you talked "digital text" and how are we seeing that as different from edition (Q3331189).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: For my purposes, I'm looking to apply facsimile (Q194070) and no label (Q42794047) as qualifiers for full work available at (P953), though I could imagine annotated edition (Q4769619) and eclectic edition (Q42793760) being in use for instance of (P31) (and possibly there could be exceptions both ways). I'm not proposing to create separate entries for, say, the Oxford Text Archive transcription of an edition. As I understand it, that properly belongs as a full work available at (P953) property in the entry for that edition. I'm looking to tag the full work available at (P953) property in a way that tells the user whether they will get the faithful text of the book or faithful scans of the book. Maybe the "edition" terminology is confusing when used this way, but this is the terminology of academic bibliography. Hope this clarifies. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we conflating editions and translations; or are we missing translations as their own works?[edit]

To me when we have the creative work (Q17537576) or the variations that we use, we then have edition or translation of (P629). Are we right to combine editions and translations? If we have a translation by an author it gets its own copyright for the translator, and to me that makes it its own creative work (Q17537576) of which then there can be their own editions. I know for the work of Anton Chekhov (Q5685) that enWS has the same works by different translators, so at the work level, are we right to group all the Russian language editions, and the variety of different language translations under the one Property:P629?  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

technically, a translation is not a creative work (Q17537576), it is a derivative work (Q836950). --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the gain ? we can always try to complexify the system but for which purpose ? And when I read the difficulties to some contributors to create work and editions items, I think the creation of an additional work item for the translations will jus be a nightmare (one item for the translation as edition, one item for the translated work and one item for the original work). Snipre (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The gain is clarity, consistency, and a disentanglement of conflated concepts that are actually very different. An editor of an edition does a very different job from a translator, and the results of the two processes require different kinds of information. Stuffing them together into a single block has resulted in all sorts of editing headaches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand the conundrum, I have hesitated to post over this matter for months. I am more trying to have an open conversation and deciding to do nothing with our eyes wide open, rather than having to unpick a situation with "Why didn't I say something earlier". In the whole conversations as they have persisted, we have the issue of the conceptual idea (creative work/work/...), to the manifestation/output (edition/book/...). We will continue to be caught by this until we do a far better job explaining this matter.

At the Wikisources we are governed by public domain/free licences, we list at the conceptual level, and reproduce at the manifestation(s). So when we have translations we need to explain the concept of dual licenses. At this point in time we manage all the data and manually apply licenses, though that is not the best way to undertake the curation, especially when it is common data across WP/WS/Commons. Ultimately we should be able to suitably licence translations according to the concept of author and translator irrespective of edition, and one day it will be fed from Wikidata. [And I am probably doing a shithouse job of describing as I need a whiteboard and a marker and to draw pictures, supported by hand-waving, rather than explanation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Please provide an example how the distinction of editions in original language and translations will help to clarify the situation: just write the relations between the editions in original languages, the translations and the corresponding work items. I did the job with the current system and I will be happy to compare with your simplified system. Snipre (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the symbolic language you have used to describe the relations. Please convert your model into prose or some other understandable form, if you would like me to assess it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: You don't need to understand my model, you need to describe once your model, using words, graphics or what is relevant. But try once to put your ideas on the paper and SHOW where the simplicity is. Snipre (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: Ok, you indicate the possible gain even if I don't see clearly what prevent you now to do what you want to do, but I would like to see the cost of that model modification in terms of items relations: can you show us how we would have to link the different editions, translations and works items with your model ? We don't need discussions, we need diagrams to be able to validate a model and that's what is missing now. An ontology follows mathematical rules so discussions are useless: tables, diagrams, systematic descriptions of relations, that's what is important.
You mention some automatic addition of license values to items, this implies bots so you should convert your idea in some programming language. Snipre (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
the problem of translations is one of the reasons why FRBR uses 3 levels to describe books (+1 for examplaries, which is not our problem). The need for an intermediate state between the original work and the edition... but the modelling on wikidata seems really difficult, and I'm not sure the linking of editions to the original work through a "translation" level would allow the retrieval of info like "date of creation of the original work" from the edition item. :/
moreover, like billinghurst says, it's already a very difficult task to explain on wikisource how the 2-levels model works… if we have to apply a 3-levels model, it will be nightmare :
and, if it could probably be achieved for books (with a lot of difficulties), it would be absolutely hell for poems and short texts... (--Hsarrazin (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First hack at some cases[edit]

  • A1Y1: a translation of work A1 of author X1 by translator Y1 ... language detail
  • A1Y2: a translation of work A1 of author X1 by translator Y2 ... language detail
  • A2Y1: a translation of work A2 of author X2 by translator Y1 ... language detail
  • A2Y3: a translation of work A2 of author X2 by translator Y3 ... language detail

manifestations of these cases each role into the edition model thereafter, they are just editions (and editions of the translation)

So A1 has editions in the same language or translations into other languages. A1 does not have editions in other languages except via the translations.

the why

So we need a means to identify the one translation of a work, then the variety of places that it appears. Please feel perfectly entitled to update this for clarity. If I can get time at a whiteboard, then I will.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having a new distinct property for translation without at least one good reason, I don't see the problem with the current uses of edition or translation of (P629). Moreover, as @Hsarrazin: pointed it, there is some over-simplifications in the initial statements ; a translation doesn't really have its « own copyright » (see derivative work (Q836950)) and in the others hand, an edition can also be considered as a derivative work (Q836950) and having protection on its own. More importantly, FRBR doesn't care about copyright to distinguish the levels, nor should we. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand that a translation is a derivative work, even so it does have its own copyright as a creative work. Many pages around that explain this, eg. http://bookwormtranslations.com/copyright-law-and-translation-what-you-need-to-know/  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Well as always with laws, it's complicated; translation doesn't really have « own copyright » but they have « some copyright of their own » (as such, the translator is not the sole author of the translation but just the co-author with the author of the original work, and depending of the country the translator can have less rights on his translation than the orginal author).
    But anyways, I don't see why and how copyrights intervene here, translation are very specific edition but still they are edition (and there is editions way more strange than translations, should we have a different property when an editor transform a poem in verse into a poem in prose? and vice versa? or when other significant changes are made to the original work? in some extreme cases, the better is just to consider that the modifications are so important that this is an entirely new work, for instance no label (Q548338) with Iliad (Q8275)).
    Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
A translation can definitely be a new work ("FRBR-style"), because as @Nonoranonqui: patiently explained to me the fundamental discrimination between works is the "Authorial responsability"... So a translation is both a new work, and it's based on/derived/it's a translation of another one. But we probably don't need a new property: we can create an item for a translation, and use
  1. edition or translation of (P629)
  2. translator (P655)
  3. based on (P144)
If I'm not mistaken, these 3 properties give us what we need for understanding the relationship between a book and his translation. A query could look authors, languages and what not to understand everything. I'm not a very good wikidatian, but if properties are simple and clear is better for everyone: we still have queries for complex relations between items. 80.181.62.189 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Except it doesn't. Where a translation has multiple editions of its own, this model fails or is corrupted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I fear that this part of the problem has no solution, from a theoretical point of view. A good translation is both a work and an edition, even for librarians. It's like the wave-particle issue in physics: it's both, depending on how you look at it, what are your needs. Wikidata works with item, which should be "unique". But books don't work that way. So we have to deal with the ambiguity of what we need. I suggest everyone to read this very good free book from @Kcoyle:, she's a great librarian and information professional, and also she's one of us ;-) Aubrey (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Aubrey: Wrong, there is no obvious solution but we can define a solution with some advantages/disadvantages. We just need to have a logic solution which can be handled by any programming language like SPARQL. Snipre (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I think we need to distinguish 2 different problems:
Take the case
E1, an edition of work W1 with author X1 in language L1
E2, an edition of work W2 with author X2 in language L1
T1, an translation of edition E1 by translator X3 in language L2
T2, an translation of edition E2 by translator X4 in language L2
If an editor decide to create an new book containing T1 and T2 as
E3, an edition of work W3 by editor X5 containing T1 and T2
There is no problem to create new items for E3 and W3 if we consider that collecting different works is a kind of new work. The Wikidata model is able to handle that situation.
The second problem is to link E1 and W1 to T1 and T2.
To be correct, the information about the fact that T1 and T2 are parts of E1/W1 have to be integrated in W1 and not in E1. Then we have to the answer the question: can we accept the following relations
* W1 has part T1
* W1 has part T2 ? Snipre (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I still don't understand the distinction beetween edition and translation and even less the need for a distinction.
I'm not sure to understand either the case you present here, do you have a concrete example? For W1 has part T1, T2, there is already some case, see this query. Is it what you were thinking about?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The use of based on (P144) to link a translation to the document used as based original text for the translation is not the best choice: some book like this one is a translation of this one which is based on the game Mass Effect (Q275960). So based on (P144) can be used twice on the same item once for the translation relation and then for the topic relation. Better avoid that situation. Snipre (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Decameron[edit]

Does anyone know of a Linked Open Data dataset for the stories in Bocaccio's Decameron? We have articles on a couple of stories {no label (Q18600581), no label (Q26710491)) but no structure for the days and the stories for each day that I can find. It would be nice not to have to do this from scratch. - PKM (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree. Somehow I was exhausted after I 1. ;) I got better with QuickStatements in the meantime, so we could try together.
    --- Jura 20:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
To start: brigata (Q43256358), days.
--- Jura 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh excellent! I can add some references to these. - PKM (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Wow, I have realized just how much deep structure you built here! I am stunned.
I have added novella (Q43334491): short prose tale popular in Renaissance Italy, progenitor of the short story <different from> the modern genre novella (Q149537): written, fictional, prose narrative normally longer than a short story but shorter than a novel, and made novella in the Decameron (Q43303440) a subclass. Much more work to do as time permits. Onward! - PKM (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@PKM: I started a list at Decameron editions and translations and included what I found at enwiki/wikisource. Maybe it's possible to give it a reasonable coverage.
--- Jura 12:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: thank you for this page and thank you for creating items about editions and translations. As you've seen I've did some corrections to fit the model of WikiProject Books; you reverted me but I see no reason to not use the model of WikiProject Books (especially as there is another discussion, which is more leaning toward keeping the current model). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems consistent with the current model, except maybe that the manuscripts should use "exemplar of" and not "edition of". I don't mind if you change that. I noticed that some of items used the wrong "translation" item, thus the constraint violations. It's fixed now.
--- Jura 14:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I see many points not respecting the model, there was edition of edition (but edition or translation of (P629) is not transitive, corrected now), there was wrong instance of (P31) (thank you for fixing it), there is still several constraints violations (for manuscripts but not only, identifiers too, eg. something is wrong on Q16438#P1256) and in the end, there is a lot of missing information and some wrong information (like Q16438#P577, the property should be inception (P571) and the values should be better indicated, more precise and referenced with better source, like the entry in the Treccani). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Q16438 isn't even on the list. The source at enwiki I was mentioning is at w:The_Decameron#Translations_into_English. It should be possible to find the same information in Wikidata. Other languages have similar lists.
--- Jura 14:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Q16438 is the work, it's not on the list but it's the more important item of this list.
And please, learn how to use edition or translation of (P629) and edition (P747) as it was intended (between a work and an edition, never between two editions ; more information on Wikidata:WikiProject Books and on en:Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I thought you were trying to present some argument and reference about the items on the list you were breaking. Yes, I think we all agree that Wikidata isn't complete yet and you obviously invited to contribute. A list of French translations could be interesting ..
--- Jura 15:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional properties[edit]

Why these properties aren't used at all: country of origin (P495) and after a work by (P1877)? --Infovarius (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Infovarius
AFAIK, after a work by (P1877) is more for artworks (like an etching after a work by (P1877) an original painting)... for books, I'd probably use based on (P144) or inspired by (P941) - these should be applied on the work item, of course, not on the edition.
as for country of origin (P495), what is the point of giving a country of origin ? the work has an author, and a language ; the country in which the author lived at the time is not necessarily the origin of the work (see Voltaire (Q9068)'s works, written in French, but written in Prussia, and published in Prussia (because of France censorship)... should they have Kingdom of Prussia (Q27306) as country of origin (P495) ? this seems rather inadequate.
on edition (Q3331189) items there is already place of publication (P291) - why would you add country of origin (P495) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
after a work by (P1877) has a different sense from based on (P144) or inspired by (P941) - it has value "person" not "work".
I understand difficulties like with Voltaire (Q9068). But what if all is unambiguate: work has been created and first published in a country - citizenship of an author. Why not to mark this in work item? --Infovarius (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Have you referred to the creation proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/31#P1877 ?  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: do you have an example for after a work by (P1877)? based on (P144) and inspired by (P941) seems more than enough to me in all cases I can think of (if it is really after *a* work by a person it seems more accurate to directly link to this work instead of the person, plus see the hijacking of after a work by (P1877) which was not at all intended to be used in that way :/ ).
For country of origin (P495), I don't see the need: there is plenty of way to find where a book come from (directly with property like place of publication (P291) - which is far more intuitive and easier to reference - or though the author(s)'s data). Is there a case where the value in country of origin (P495) would be different than the value in place of publication (P291)?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I was checking, for 94,017 items with instance of (P31) = book (Q571) (36 %), there is 34,025 with a country of origin (P495). Maybe it should be accepted on works, as place of publication (P291) is only for editions. It's redundant (which is a bad in itself) but it would be easier to do queries and other stuff (like using the redundancy to check the consistency). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Language property[edit]

I am completely confused which property (language of work or name (P407) or original language of work (P364)) should be used for books, works and films and which is deprecated and will be deleted. User:Pasleim deletes P407 statements, sometimes deletes P364, User:VIGNERON deletes P364. Can you come to an agreement and explain to others? --Infovarius (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

original language of work (P364) is deprecated and in a process of deletion (for several months now, it's even written in the original language of work (P364) description) as it was meaningless most of the times (for multiple reason but thank to the FRBR model). For information, I deleted all original language of work (P364) only on items about 'edition' *and* when there was already a language of work or name (P407) with the exact same value (about ~200 items IIRC). So globally, never use original language of work (P364) and always language of work or name (P407). the first removal you cite was an obvious mistake. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Consensus was reached on WD:PFD to merge original language of work (P364) into language of work or name (P407). However, members of the WikiProject Movies insist on keeping both properties for movies. If you think this is confusing, your comment is highly appreciated on Wikidata:Properties for deletion#Closure of stale thread. --Pasleim (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: what are you talking about? The plan is quite clear and logic, see Wikidata:WikiProject Books. And AFAIK, information is not lost (at least not by me, I checked that the information was already there before deleting the deprecated property). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
For items like Les Débuts littéraires de Thingum Bob (Q17352560), there was at least two clues that is it an edition : 1. not in a language spoken by the author and 2. link to Wikisource. I improved the items (who weren't at all following the plan, so it is illogical to use this item as an example of alleged failure of the plan), I think it's clear now.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
We were looking for a conversion plan. Not that it matters now, we already lost the information in relation to books.
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17352560&oldid=563333657 was correct when it was created/edited, but the change of the property on other items made us loose the information that it was just the language of the edition. The same probably applies to all similar items. You will probably need to find a new source to rebuild the information.
--- Jura 09:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17352560&oldid=563333657 was wrong since the beginning. It had a sitelink to Wikisource but was instance of a work. --Pasleim (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Somehow I got the impression the contributor who made it is an expert in the field. So if the approach isn't clear to them, it's unlikely to scale well.
--- Jura 09:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: again: what on Earth are you talking about? this edit is clearly and entirely correct, what is wrong with it? (besides the obvious missing properties on the same item but that's beside the point, the item is better after this addition ; and why are you even mentioning it? it's very loosely related to the problem here). What information is lost exactly? For the conversion plan, it's quite easy: delete all original language of work (P364) and replace them by language of work or name (P407) with the same value (and in bonus: check the instance of (P31) and other properties like edition or translation of (P629) and country calling code (P474)). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are confusing things. Pasleim is stating that the item was wrong to begin with. At least you seem to be satisfied with the approach that seems to be applied for books.
--- Jura 10:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm confusing thing but clearly I'm confused by you. The item Q17352560 was wrong in the beginning as it was empty and missing a lot of property and the instance of (P31) was too general (but reminder: it was created back then in 2014). In 2017, @Hsarrazin: add a language of work or name (P407) and it was a good thing. The only « mistake » (but can we really call it that way?) is that she didn't added others properties nor corrected the P31, but the edit in itself was good. In the end, none of that really matter as original language of work (P364) is not at all involved here.
Can we move on and use a more relevant example? For instance no label (Q19157120) and the P364 deletion I made two days ago. Is there anything you consider as lost here? and why? (I don't see any lost but maybe I'm missing something). If not, do you have an explicit example?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently Pasleim and you disagree on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17352560&oldid=563333657 . I'm not sure what I can add to help you with this. I'm not aware that an edit is or can be considered incorrect if one doesn't add more statements.
--- Jura 10:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually fully agree with VIGNERON. P31 needed to be corrected which wasn't done till today, but this correction should have happened independently of the language property merge. --Pasleim (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, P31 on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17352560&oldid=563333657 being too general and wrong isn't really the same. It's not independent of the language properties (original language of work and language of edition) because the the use of P407 made it clear that it may not have been the original language of the written work. Once all written work just use language of edition, it's no longer clear.
--- Jura 10:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It's maybe not entirely independent (everything is connected in this Universe) and indeed on this particular example it had to be corrected/completed but now, it seems good to me for this item. Do you have other example where it's unclear or where allegedly « information was lost »? PS: language of work or name (P407) is *not* « language of edition ». Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, the conversion plan would have taken care of such problems. As Pasleim is doing it, maybe he can detail.
--- Jura 11:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the only user developed a conversion plan and I'm not the only user doing the conversion (btw, I'm not even member of this WikiProject).
I think, you had too high expectations on the conversion. language of work or name (P407) was not and is not "language of edition". If an item is an edition or a work is defined over P31, P279, sitelinks and external identifiers. If these values were set wrong, they are still wrong now after conversion but it didn't lead to any information loss. --Pasleim (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
So if P364 is going to be deprecated I don't understand why User:Pasleim is massively deleting P407 in favor to P364? --Infovarius (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The current rules of WikiProject Movies say to use P364 for movies, therefore I remove P407 in cases where it is redundant to P364. If P364 is going to be deprecated depends on whether or not user accept community consensus. --Pasleim (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
We reached consensus to deprecate P364, but we never reached a consensus about the manner in which it would be deprecated, or how the data currently in the property would be handled. The most obvious problem is that the property is explicitly for language of a work, and not for language of editions, nor does the process of deprecation attend to the issue of marking source languages for translations or editions of translations, which is not always the same as the language of the ultimate source (=work). Nor does it solve the problem that works themselves do not have a language; only individual editions / copies will have a language. A "work" refers to the creative piece independently of any specific copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think that work doesn't have a language?? Usually literary works are created in one and only language which is the language. And editions in other languages are just translations from the original language (translation itself can be regarded as creation of new creative work, in different language). Infovarius (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry ? of course all works (textual works obviously) must have a language. But it is language of work or name (P407) not original language of work (P364). --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: But the work data item is for the work as a whole, meaning every edition and not any specific edition. A work can appear in any language to which it is edited or translated. We have chosen to eliminate the "original language" property, and now have no means of indicating the original language unless there is a "first edition. This itself is a problematic issue, and some works have no known first edition, and some have a first serialized edition that predates the first bound (book) edition, etc.
We also have no propoerty for marking "language of edition" or "language of translation". We only have a property for "language of work". --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I am not understanding, but if we are talking about the "work" the language P407 is used, and it replaces P364. Editions have P407, and have no requirement for original language as you refer back to the work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Billinghurst: Why would an edition be marked with language of work or name (P407), since that property is explicitly for the language of the work? Editions are not works. ::::: Also, how do we mark the source language for translations and for editions of translations? We currently have no logical means of doing that. Yes, there can be pointers back to a "work", but for translations we cannot agree on whether the translation is an "edition" or is a "work" and needs its own edition data items.
And, yes, current practice puts language of work or name (P407) on works, but that makes no logical sense. Language is not a property of a work; it is a property of an edition. The language can differ in various translations/editions, so it is not a property native to the work. An item's properties must be invariant, or they are not properties of that data item. "Author" is a property of a work, because a work will always have that author, and this is why we do not replicate the author information on all the data items for the editions. But the date of publication varies with every edition, so we do not put "date of publication" on the work item, but rather on the individual items for each edition. The work instead gets a "date of first publication", or no date at all. The "language" property is in the same category as "date"; it varies with editions/translations, and is not inherent to the work. Yes, a work has an original language of composition, but we've decided to eliminate that property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
language of work or name (P407) on a work is the language it was originally composed by the author... How can you say that it makes no sense to put a language on a work... the language is intrisec to the work... this way, when an edition is the same language, it means it was not translated, whereas when it is different it means it is a translation... Work notice at Bnf (for ex.)
what caracterizes a work is :
  1. an author,
  2. a title (sometimes conventional),
  3. a language,
  4. a date of creation.
Without a language, how can you say that Shakespeare wrote in English, Molière in French or Goethe in German ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much my point of view. I would even take it a step further and say that all language belongs on a work, not on edition. Though to do that I have to go back to my argument that each translation is a work too. Any edition of a work, or of a translation, has to be in the same language of its respective parent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I think we are mixing very different definitions and senses of the word work here. The sens of work in frbr (that I will write down workfrbr) is very narrow. Editions (and by extension translations, who are expressionsfrbr that we defined to be equivalent to editionwikidata) are not workfrbr but they are work. When P407 says work, I believe this is lato sensu, not stricto sensu. billinghurst: I hear your argument but I feel this is unnecessary or at least I don't see the need (and meanwhile, I see a lot of potential trouble, especially as languages are not always clearly delimited, one can argue that Shakespeare and Molière were not writing in English or French but Early Modern English (Q1472196) and Classical French (Q3100376)). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek works[edit]

@billinghurst, Hsarrazin, VIGNERON, Snipre: There are currently 13 items left which use both P364 and P407.

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P364 []; wdt:P407 [] .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Me and EncycloPetey disagree on how to apply the guidelines on the front page of this WikiProject. Can somebody of you help us with these items? --Pasleim (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, Pasleim: what is the disagreement exactly? Didn't we all agree that original language of work (P364) is deprecated and shouldn't be used? (and if it weren't used for movies too, the property would probably be already deleted for months)
This is maybe besides the point but I've looked at the results and there is something wrong: The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) is indicated as work in instance of (P31) but many data indicates this is in fact an edition (the 1853 edition by Hickie according to the link to WS and the publication date (P577)). All items seems to be in the same case.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
IMO, original language of work (P364) should be removed from The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) but EncycloPetey reverted that change 4 times during the last months [1] [2] [3] [4]. I also think that it should be marked as edition or translation but also that edit was reverted by them [5]. --Pasleim (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: If you still don't understand the disagreement after months and months of discussion, then explaining it to you all over again isn't going to do any good, is it? Please look at all the previous discussion. There is a lot of it already.
Re: The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489). If you believe this is an edition, then what is it an edition of? What is the work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I saw the discussions and was wondering if there was a new argument because I thought (wrongly apparently) we were over this, almost all original language of work (P364) has been removed, your 13 texts are the only ones left.
True the case of anthology is a but strange but since you use properties for editions, it seems better to tell it's an edition (or subclass of edition). It should be checked but an item for s:en:Comedies of Aristophanes would be good for the work, wouldn't it? On the other way around, I can ask you almost the same question: « If you believe this is a work, then what is its edition ? ». And on other items like The House of Atreus (Q30349006) you add instance of (P31) = translation (Q7553) ; which is weird as translation (Q7553) is an action, you probably mean translation (Q39811647) which is a subclass of edition (Q3331189). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would you think it was resolved? No consensus on what action to take was ever reached. We agreed to deprecate the one property, but never agreed on how to go about that or how to preserve the information it indicates.
Re: the anthology: huh? No, s:en:Comedies of Aristophanes would not be good for the work. That's a disambiguation page for multiple works that bear the same title. There is no work for this to come from. This is, as you say, an anthology composed entirely of components that are editions, but itself has no parent work to come from. As I keep saying, the data model we are using is both flawed and incomplete, so an appeal to that flawed and incomplete model is merely circular reasoning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was resolved since all original language of work (P364) has been removed without trouble (except these 13 items). Is there anyone else except you who disagree?
Why not use s:en:Comedies of Aristophanes (and replace the s:en:disambig with s:en:Template:Versions, as it closer to the second), if we take the criteria given by Hsarrazin, all these anthology have : the same author, the same title, the same language, and the date of creation. It seems to fit the bill. True the content is different for each editions but work has no content so it doesn't really matters (and other properties are already here to explicit that). An other solution is to create a specific work for each different version (a bit overkill but it works too).
FRBR may not be perfect and there always will be tricky cases but this is the best system I know. Plus, it's quite well documented and this project agreed on to use FRBR. Do you know a better cataloguing system?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: "...the data model we are using is both flawed and incomplete..." This is perhaps true but where are your contributions to solve that ? Perhaps it is time to act as a contributor and to propose a better model. Can we hope once to see contribution to a model ? Snipre (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: So, you agree that the data model is both flawed and incomplete, and are willing to explore change? This is the first indication that you or anyone else has made that change might be possible. If we can get more of the community to agree to this, then we will be able to proceed. Up to now, everyone has been pushing to spread the flaws. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Read again what I said: "This is perhaps true that the data model we are using is both flawed and incomplete". But as you never show how to complete or improve the current model how can I judge what is missing ? Until you propose something, and this is something I ask you to do since several weeks, the current model is the best we have and we have to use it in order to be coherent inside WD. I prefer to have a bad solution than only criticisms saying we can do better. Snipre (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Since you're not willing to move forward or admit change, it's disingenuous to criticize others for not proposing solutions. If you're not going to implement the ideas of others, there's no reason to propose those ideas. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Where do you read that I am not ready to change my mind ? Please link to one of my comments saying that. You are not logic because you asked people to change their mind BEFORE showing them any reasons to do it. We have a model which need to be extended but we have something real. And you, what do you have ? You never presented nothing, so for me you have nothing to propose. WD is not a poker game so put your cards on the table or leave the table. Snipre (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Pasleim on these. We can call the original language by reference to the parent work rather than trying to replicate it in every edition. For that set of works, that smattering of the instance of (P31) it is just getting ugly ... book/translation/edition. Compilations don't fit the model, wonder how we go with "Greatest Speeches of ..." compilation, it is going shred your models. /me throws his hands into the air, and leaves it to the experts. I think I will stick with doing editions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The correct way to handle a case like The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) is to consider it as a normal book: we need a work item and an edition item. The work item for this book will contain the links to other work item of the works composing the book
So having this case:
  • A1: a work of author X1 in language L1 represented in WD by QAAA
  • A2: a work of author X2 in language L2 represented in WD by QBBB
  • D1: a combined edition of A1 and A2 by translator X3 in language L3
To represent D1 in wikidata we need 2 items:
QXXX, Work item for D1 with the following statements:
QYYY, Edition item for D1 with the following statements:
Do you agree with the proposed model ? Snipre (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst, Hsarrazin, VIGNERON, Snipre, EncycloPetey, Pasleim: With my proposition we solve the question of original language of work (P364). Snipre (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
With which proposition is that? I see nothing that solves that questions currently under consideration. What we need are two new properties: (1) language of composition (or first performance, or first publication), and (2) language of edition (which might be adaptable from "language of work"). And for translations we need some third item to indicate language of source text, and/or the identity of the source text, from which the translation was prepared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:Can't you use your capacity to infer ? This is one principle of database: use relations to deduce information not written. Example, if I said that all dogs are mammals and Floppy is a dog, can't you deduce that Floppy is a mammal even if I don't say it ?
So if you don't have the language of the original text in a item defining a translation, go to the item of the corresponding original text. So the original language of D1 is the language of A1 and A2, so if I have to extract the language value from QAAA and QBBB.
If I want to know the gender of the author of The Knights (Q1215817), why do I have to look in item Aristophanes (Q43353) and not in The Knights (Q1215817) ? Snipre (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you still can't understand the problem after all the discussion we've been through. Your analogy is flawed for all the reasons we've discussed elsewhere. If all dogs are mammals then that is an invariant quality. It does not change. Likewise, the gender of an author does not (usually) change, so there is no need to replicate it of mark it elsewhere because it is an invariant quality. But language of a work varies and does change, and it is context dependent upon the particular edition, translation, or performance of that work, so it is not an invariant property. Likewise "date" of a work depends upon the specific edition, translation, or performance. You cannot deduce anything when the values are inconstant.
And we've already been through the problem of identifying "original" texts. There is no means of marking that reliably. A translation of a text might be made from the "original", or it might be made from a derivative text in another language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please (again) don't mix work and workfrbr, work may have several languages (and even that is a bit dubious to me) but workfrbr clearly has always only one language (the on inside the head of the author). For translation (Q7553) vs. Indirect translation (Q23808533), this is a different and separate matter (already discuss in multiple sections of this page), if an edition of Hamlet in German has been translated from one of the first edition in Early Modern English or from a different edition in English or French, doesn't change the fact that Shakespeare was thinking his workfrbr in Early Modern English or that the first editions were in that language, this is clearly invariant. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit: my mistake, in FRBR, workfrbr has no language, this is a property of expressionfrbr only. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: it seems good to me and it seems to be more or less what the FRBR recommends : FRBR 2008 (look on pages 30, 67 and passim, could you take a look and confirm if it fits or not?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If P407 by itself isn't sufficient to express the information, it probably needs qualifiers. If cases are rare, this might scale. If these are frequent, a solution with a dedicated might be needed. I don't see how it helps us determining the meaning of statement, but if we just say that one solution is "correct" or "what mother recommends implicitly". Once we have a solution, one can try to determine if it can be interpreted in this or that scheme.
    --- Jura 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Jura1: the solution chosen is quite simple: P407 is the language of the item, if P407 is used on an item with P31 = work (or subclass of), then this is the language of the work, if P407 is used on an item with P31 = edition, then this is the language of the edition (and if P407 is used on something else, then look at the P31). We can use qualifier to make it more explicit and duplicate the P31 but honestly, you just have to look at the P31 to already infer a clear answer. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • In this case, there are several languages associated with the item. Up to us to find a solution to qualify them correctly statements correctly.
      --- Jura 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: (if this case is The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489)) there shouldn't be, as already said this item is mixing the work (in Ancient Greek) and edition level (in English). The solution is to do as usual (as Snipre put it « consider it as a normal book ») one item for the work, one for the edition. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @VIGNERON: So how many data items will be required to set up the book currently at The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489)? If we do it your way (as I understand it), there will be 27 data items, or maybe more. That's just for the one book that exists in a single edition on a single Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
          • @EncycloPetey: I would say only 2: one for the 'work' (to create), one for the 'edition' (The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) that already exist, with some changes on instance of (P31) and edition or translation of (P629) moved to has part (P527) in the new 'work' item so P629 on the edition wan be linked to the new 'work' item). We already do this kind split for usual books, why not doing it for anthology? after anthology are books (and yes, I required a bigger number of items but we put less data on each items so all in all and in the long run, this is clearly better). @Snipre: do you confirm? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
            • @VIGNERON: So no data items for each of the two volumes? No data items for each of the plays included in the anthology (both the work (translation) and the edition (in this anthology))? Why would you not include those? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
              • @EncycloPetey: oh yes, you're right, a work and an edition item for each play in the anthology. I didn't look at the plays in detail but its seems to be already done : The Acharnians (Q1059987) the work and The Acharnians (Q19077417) an edition in English (at least you have the works). So with 11 plays, it's 22 items, plus 2 for the ensemble, not sure about the volumes (I would say no, but I will have to see the previous discussions). And if you want to count all, you need an item for the place of edition(s), for the editor(s), for the translator(s), etc., and a lot of items for the character in the plays too ;) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
              • I feel this is somewhat problematic when we try to discuss this and people just keep repeating things they already wrote and don't actually look at items.
                --- Jura 11:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: That's what I said since several months: a compilation of works is a new work. But here I see a potential problem for some particular cases: if I have a work for one original text I don't have a work for a corresponding translated edition of that work, so if someone decides to publish a new book containing the original text and the translated text, then the proposed model requires a work item for the translation. Does it means we need a work item for all translation, perhaps not, but we have to find a solution for this case. For books, this case is rare but for poems, this case is more frequent. Snipre (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: It's not uncommon for texts at all, and is common far beyond poetry. It applies to drama, correspondence, essays, and most of all it applies to a high proportion of classical literature (Greek, Latin, Chinese, etc.) where parallel texts are common and also anthologies of translations are common. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: And ? Do you have a solution or a proposition ? Snipre (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A large part of our problem, in a nutshell, is that we are limited to a binary system of [ "work" or "edition/translation" ]. Translations are neither wholly one or the other, yet they do have editions. So, we need a third option of "translation" that effectively lies in between the levels of "work" and "edition". That doesn't solve all the issues, but would be a positive step if we could implement it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Good. This is a first step. Can you please provide then the relations between the work, the edition in original language and your new class translation in order to see how complex the model is. Do we have all properties or do we need to create some new ones ? Snipre (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking or what you're driving at. I know "relation" in the mathematical sense and the biological sense, but think it must have a slightly different meaning the way you are using it. How do you expect a response to be framed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
We have 3 classes (work, edition, translation) so we need at least 3 relations and possible 3 others if we want to have reverse properties. Snipre (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The approach at Wikidata:Lists/Decameron editions and translations works out quite well. We just need to find a good way to express what language something was translated from.
--- Jura 07:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
With your approach one can easily determine the language something was translated from by following the edition or translation of (P629) chain. The concern is that you are using edition or translation of (P629) to link both edition with translation and translation with original work. But maybe widen the scope of P629/P747 is more comprehensible than creating a handful new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree for this sample, but it's more complicated for EncycloPetey's. I noticed that there was some inconsistency in the labels of P629/P747. Maybe "translation" should be included in both properties and all languages.
--- Jura 16:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
RE Pasleim: "With your approach one can easily determine the language something was translated from by following the edition or translation of (P629) chain." But that won't always work. Assuming that the chain exists, and is complete, and isn't confounded by more than one layer of translation/edition (not all these conditions are always met), all the end of the chain may tell you the language of an ultimate work, not necessarily the language from which the translation was made. The English book The Waning of the Middle Ages is ultimately a translation of a Dutch work, but the translation was made from an unpublished French translation that was radically different from the original Dutch. I also have a book I'm woking with on Wikisource where the original language of composition was German, but the English translation was published first because of the death of the author before the German could be published. So is language of composition and the language of first publication are not the same. Our methods for indicating basic information like author, date, and language are too simplistic to cope with a lot of the data we need to record. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A main principle of database design is to avoid duplicate data. You find in the web a lot of literature explaining why duplicate data are bad in a database. If we agree to aim for a good database design, we store the language of the original work only once, namely on the item about the original work. The same with the author. The question left to answer is then how to link editions/derived works/translations with the item about the original work. We currently have edition or translation of (P629)/edition (P747) and has part (P527)/part of (P361) and published in (P1433). If you think this is not sufficient, please make proposals for new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
WMF DE seems to be for duplicates (at least Wikibase supports symmetric constraints and explicitly doesn't develop better alternatives). WMF gives grants for triplicate schemes .. So I think with an occasional supplementary statement we are still much closer to the ideal.
--- Jura 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edition of an edition[edit]

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books

Hi,

It seems obvious and trivial to me, and as documented on the property page, the main page here Wikidata:WikiProject Books and in the FRBR, that an « edition of an edition » is not possible and doesn't even make sense (an edition is by definition the thing edited from a work). So logically, I corrected it on Декамерон (Q43475477) but Jura1 (talkcontribslogs) reverted me and is asking for « references ».

For me it's as obvious as « the sky is blue » or « water is wet », I don't know what more to explain... Any idea, remarks, etc. ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: to be sure, I checked again in the FRBR, it's clearly stated « Translations from one language to another, musical transcriptions and arrangements, and dubbed or subtitled versions of a film are also considered simply as different expressions of the same original work. » (FRBR, pages 17-18)

Q43475477 is an edition of a 19th-century translation: Q43169039.
Similar to Q43517456 which is an 1860 edition of the 15th century translation Q43516994.
Maybe the Commons sitelinks shouldn't be on these items.
The objective is to provide a full list of translations at Wikidata:Lists/Decameron editions and translations
similar to w:The_Decameron#Translations_into_English.
--- Jura 16:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't speak russian enough so I don't know if the edition Q43475477 is based or not on the edition Q43169039 (BTW, they're both edition as translation are edition). But in any case, the property to indicate this information is based on (P144) not edition (P747)/edition or translation of (P629). For the list, it is easier to create the exact same list when all editions are link to the same work (the SPARQL request would be shorter with just P629 and not P629+ which doesn't really make sense as P629 is not transitive).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "the property to indicate this information is based on (P144)" what leads you to this conclusion? Is this something you just made up now or is it documented somewhere at Wikidata?
    --- Jura 00:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The way the FRBR Group 1 classes have been implemented on Wikidata does not allow to express that two editions (frbr:Manifestation) are the embodiments of the same frbr:Expression. based on (P144) is not adequate to express this, as it could also be used to express that an adaptation is based on a particular translation. I'm not sure to what extent it is necessary in Jura1's example and use case to actually be able to express such subtleties. I can however understand that some confusion may arise if one has the distinction between frbr:Expression and frbr:Manifestation in mind. --Beat Estermann (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the labels/definitions of edition or translation of (P629) aren't the same in all languages. At some point, "translation" was added to English ([6]) and some other languages. The approach chosen for Decameron seems consistent with current constraints.
--- Jura 13:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
« edition of » and « edition or translation of » is the same thing as translations are editions (at least until now in this project and in FRBR), the precision in the label is just a way to make more explicit for users. Formally there is not constraints right now to forbid edition of edition but there should be as (I feel) this is not at all in the spirit of this project where 'edition of' is supposed to be between only Work and Edition levels, not inside item of the Edition level. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This seems to be what I have been addressing at #Are we conflating editions and translations; or are we missing translations as their own works?. The generic "translation" can be at the work level, or at the edition level. Like the misuse of "book" which can relate the creative work, or a specific edition of the work. The difference in the jargon is not important to most people.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: exactly but even if we choose to consider editions and translations to be different things (which I think to be a bad and unnecessary idea, as most databases and references consider translations to be editions) then we would need a new property 'translation of' and in this case we wouldn't have edition of editions, right ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For information, right now there is 341 results for edition of edition:

SELECT ?item1 ?item1Label ?item2 ?item2Label ?item3 ?item3Label WHERE {
  ?item1 wdt:P629 ?item2 .
  ?item2 wdt:P629 ?item3 .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Some of them seems to violates multiple constraints (including of lot of manuscripts which probably should use exemplar of (P1574) instead). What should we do with these items?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: For exemplar we need to use exemplar of (P1574) and to link the exemplar to the edition or to the work if no edition exists. Snipre (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The main problem is from this kind of item Septuagint manuscript (Q7452368): this is typically a Wikipedia structure which doesn't correspond to the Wikidata model and create an additional layer in instance/subclass classification without having any meaning in the FRBR classification.
Second problem is this item Septuagint (Q29334) or Vulgate (Q131175) which are defined as work but described as translation of the Bible. We need to find a solution for these items. Snipre (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The Septuagint and Vulgate are effectively anthologies of translations. The Vulgate and Septuagint both have the same collection of translated texts, but "The Bible" can vary in what it contains depending upon the form of Christianity (Coptic, Ethiopian, Orthodox, Protestant) or Hebrew (which will not contain the New Testament). So "The Bible" is not a fixed text nor a definite anthology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

frbr:Expression[edit]

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books

Hi,

I'm presently working on the ingest of a pilot dataset of performing arts productions. The Expressions that are to be described in the context of the performing arts are not necessarily editions (often, they have not been published, but we do know who the translator or the adapter was, we know their language, etc.). I would therefore suggest to create a separate class "Expression", corresponding to frbr:Expression, and to slightly modify the description of edition (Q3331189) on the Books project page: in fact, edition (Q3331189) seems to correspond first and foremost to frbr:Manifestation.

When describing editions from the perspective of physical artefacts, as is most common in the library world, the approach that was used so far, employing the classes edition (Q3331189) and creative work (Q17537576), would be maintained as is. However, when describing expressions from the perspective of their content, as is the case in the theatrical databases I'm working with, a more refined data model could be used which distinguishes between the four FRBR Group 1 classes.

I've described the rationale in more detail here and am looking forward to your comments. --Beat Estermann (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beat Estermann:
On this page it's indicated: « Not to complicate too much, we didn't use the FRBR terms "expression" or "manifestation", as the boundary between the definitions it's not easy to grasp. So we used "edition" instead, collapsing those 2 FRBR layers in 1 (other conceptual frameworks similar to FRBR (like Bibframe) collapse those 2 layers too). Thus the double layer work - edition has been used for creating Book properties. »
I don't know if our "edition" level closer to the "expression" or to the "manifestation" FRBR level, I don't know (if I had to tell, I would have said "expression" but it's true that our edition level is - wrongly - more seen as physical than intellectual) and I'm not even sure the question make sense as it's both by design.
For the creation of a new class for "expression", it's a good idea (at least we would be exactly aligned with FRBR), but I don't know how to make it useable for everyone (most of the problem on this project are because the simplified models is too complicated already - even if meanwhile some people want to add a fifth level for translation... - so I'm not sure to deal with one more level).
I've read you text quickly and some things seems a bit strange but it sounds good globally, I'll try to read it more thoroughly soon.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion[edit]

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books

Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion (Q4891400) is a 10-volume encyclopedia published in hardcover, ebook, and online. Each volume has its own ISBNs, DOI, editors and subject area (e.g. African dress). Should I make a work item for each volume or can they all be editions of one work item Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion (Q4891400) annotated as to volume number, editors, and subject area? (see contents) - PKM (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

After much thought, I am going to add a single edition for the online Encyclopedia and just include the volume information and reference URLs in individual references until I see if this source is useful enough to create items for each volume. - PKM (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposing change to qualifiers— remove P248, add P805[edit]

Following a discussion in Wikidata:Project chat about the constraint that stated in (P248) is only to be used for references, that I will replace that with the identified preferred statement is subject of (P805). I will look to set up a references section on same page and have P248 entered there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t get why you need a qualifier and not a reference. The example do not help. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Where we are using described by source (P1343) it is not a reference, it is a qualifier to the work, as such it is a statement of origin. There has been widespread use of P248 in this situation, and this is a constraint violation, see Property:P248. So this is to offer a contextually corrected property to use for P1343.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
See Charles Dickens (Q5686) for some examples of difference. If you have the "show constraint violations" gadget operating, you will see the highlights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

NB: I changed behavior of s:ru:Модуль:Другие источники to use P805 instead of P248 (diff). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

NB2: w:ru:Модуль:External links uses P805 too.

@billinghurst, TomT0m: Can you run a bot to replace P248 with P805? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well outside my skill set. I have placed this request for a bot to be run. There is a discussion section there if there is any comment to be made about the requested replacement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pseudonyms[edit]

Currently it seem we are assuming that pseudonyms do not have their own items. It’s not the case in external databases that have a proper identifier (Qid here) on pseudonyms. This causes questions on our users (see Talk:Q7245 or Topic:U5ied71lz96i7r8m). I think we should think about this. Any previous discussion about this ? Any known Documentation ? author  TomT0m / talk page 17:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There are definitely cases where the pseudonyms have items, though the article needs to be about the pseudonym, not about the individual, ie. article at WP that has article as such pseudonym itself is notable. I have seen this more in cases of collective pseudonym (Q16017119).  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Here a related question: is there a case where a Wikimedia project has two differents pages, one for the person and one for the pseudonym? (and is it a common pratice on a Wikimedia project?). I don't know any but if there is, Wikidata would have to deal with it. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: check for instance of (P31) -> pseudonym (Q61002) and see what is there. I know that there are articles for collective pseudonyms.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
My unknown case is when we know a text is signed by a pseudonym but we know nothing about whom actually is the author. Is the proposed model currently is
< text > author (P50) View with SQID < unknown value >
credited as search < string pseudonym >
 ?
This raises another question : a pseudonym is supposed to be its own identifier. What happens if several authors uses the same pseudonym at some point in time, we don’t know who one or two actually is but we are rather sure the author is not the same. In other words, there is two « persona », with each an author, with the same signature ? Is there anonymous authors we only know their pseudonyms ? This imply, if an anonymous author has several pseudonym and we create a « human » item for each, that one person can have several « human » Wikidata item. This is not true if we choose to have « persona » items. If we have « persona » item, we also can refer to this pseudo without using its signature string. We can have several « persona » for one pseudonym string. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If there is no article/item for an author, just a pseudonym, and an unknown one, you probably should just consider using author name string (P2093). I see little point generating items for people who are basically anonymous.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Good questions.
The precise meaning and use of named as (P1810) is clearly not clear (there is a constraint used as qualifier constraint (Q21510863) but the given example is a direct property :/ I will raise this point on the talk page, but there is other unclear point, among others: is it limited to people or not?). Nonetheless, you model seems good, just one detail: it's not always a unknown value, it can be used for known value too for alternative names which act the same way as pseudonyms
< some old edition of the 'Sonnets' > author (P50) View with SQID < William Shakespeare (Q692) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
named as (P1810) View with SQID < Shake-speares >
(and with statement is subject of (P805) = spelling of William Shakespeare's name (Q7575898)). author name string (P2093) is a good solution too (but it depends on the context).
At least, one point is sure : anonymous (no name) and pseudonymous (some name) are mutually exclusive. It's either one or the other.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I can also see it being used as qualifier to a reference, see Chet Baker (Q2274) which is causing constraints issues too. From my reading of the English description, it is used for proper nouns, rather than people.

Re your Shakespeare example, does it not come under my earlier explanation? I would have said that would just be the addition of the pseudonym property item added to Shakespeare, and then on the work, use author -> Shakespeare, then qualify with "named as" -> given pseudonym/alternate spelling/whichever  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: indeed, I see that this point is already discuss on Property talk:P1810.
Maybe, but I'm not sure to understand, what « earlier explanation » are you talking about.
To get back to the original question, some database have several identifiers but some have only one (BnF has only one for Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Once more we’re discussing a global issue (pseudonyms) taking the small picture. This tends to spread discussions everywhere :( This amounts to questioning Wikidata objective on this. I tend to think we’re one place where we can add informations that are not hold by over databases. Wikidata has a large scope, and tend to be inclusive. I think as a consequence we should allow to hold information about personas. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I wonder if the lack of a « persona » concept in this model tends to make kind of hard to treat cases in a generic way. There is a lot of properties and way to use it. Hard to take into account all the possible cases and not forget something. If a writer likes to play with the histories of its identities, invents false biographies for them, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romain_Gary for example who let his cousin play the role of one pseudonym for the press, hard to model any of this. If we consider « Emile Ajar » a fictional character, then we can have an item for it and link it to the item of Gary’s cousin. Authors have also been known to change pseudonyms wrt. the field of work, eg. Special:EntityPage/Q309240 who signed « Moebius » only for its science fiction work. We can’t really link the pseudo with science fiction properly if we don’t have an item for Moebius. As a qualifier for the pseudonym maybe … but that’s a limited approach. Also a single persona may have several signature string. The « persona item » model allows to treat all kind of corner cases elegantly. And seems to me easier to query while being more flexible. I think we should have « persona » items and property to link them to their puppeteers. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I said above:
There are definitely cases where the pseudonyms have items, though the article needs to be about the pseudonym, not about the individual, ie. article at WP that has article as such pseudonym itself is notable. I have seen this more in cases of collective pseudonym (Q16017119).
So no items for pseudonyms unless there is a wikidata item that says "this is a pseudonym" and not about the person for who it was a pseudonym.

So, for where there are multiple authority controls they are usually both entered against the person and each is qualified with "named as." If there is more than one BnF, then it will have corresponding multiple VIAFs, and it is my understanding that this will put the duplicates into a queue to be considered for merging.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@TomT0m: You can list multiple pseudonyms against one author. The task is to link a work to the author, irrespective of the name used, where the additional names are qualified.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If someone is creating false biographies for a pseudonym, then that sounds like it reaches into one of those where an article is being written about the pseudonym, and it does get its own item.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Then remember that I discussed collective pseudonym (Q16017119) so Ellery Queen (Q586362) and Michael Field (Q839369) have articles and have multiple people involved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)