Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2015

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion of one property

We have to select one property between language of work or name (P407) and original language of film or TV show (P364): one of these properties is redundant in the FRBR system used to describe works and editions. As each edition (translated or not) has a specific item separated from the work item, it is not possible to have in the same item both properties language of work or name (P407) and original language of film or TV show (P364). original language of film or TV show (P364) can be retrieved from the work item which can be described using language of work or name (P407). So I propose to delete original language of film or TV show (P364) and before launching the deletion proposal I wanted to know the opinions of the people working in this field. Snipre (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The main difference is p364 is for works, p407 is for editions. However the wikipedia articles very often are about both, sometimes also about the translations of a work. The separation of the themes is not so strict. Sometimes an article in one language is about the work, in the other language it is about the translation. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Not technical reason from wikidata point of view. As we will be able to import data from other items that the item connected to the wp article, this problem in WP is not relevant for WD. Snipre (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Generel questions

I'm relatively new to wikidata. Since I write for Wikipedia and I'm very much interested to bibliographic data I want to ask:

Thank you very much for an answer,--Mischa004 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A querie brings about [31%3A571&mode=undefined&statementlist=&run=Run&label_contains=&label_contains_not=&chunk_size=10000 50.000 books] and there are thousands more, that have been classified as "literary work" or are still unclassified. There is a property GND ID (P227), which is used 335.000 times. To use a bot you need a bot-flag. There is no easy way to tell, how the mass is entered, because of some items there are some properties that are allmost completely done by bots, other things are done manually or semim-anually. So most items will be a mix of both. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, great answers for me! I have to think now.--Mischa004 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mischa004: As far as I know most GNDs are imported from Wikipedia or VIAF by bot. Are you sure that 80.000 works in Wikidata are linked to the GND? I suspect there are much less. (Having more would be great!) German Wikipedia has only 4.600 GNDs, type w (= work). Most GNDs are type p (= person). Single editions are linked through DNB edition ID (P1292). --Kolja21 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer! - No, I'm sure they are not linked, just as you say. Just for fun I wrote a private bot which read out all the GND-work-titles I wanted from a big GND-file. Then the bot put the GND-titles plus some other GND-bibliographic information concerning these titles into my private bibliographic database. This is fun but doesn't make sense. I found that about 80.000 of the GND-works (of the specific work-type "wit" if I remember correctly) was in a not so bad shape. Of course there a problems (even some of this 80.000 GND-work-data are truly rubbish or useless). - Another question: where can I find the discussion on this topic: should every book (if work or edition) have an own page in Wikidata? (Like should be the case in Open Library)--Mischa004 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mischa, Wikidata is not meant for every book, but for every book and article that is
a) needed for reference = stated in (P248) or
b) a major work of a relevant author = notable work (P800) (see WD:N).
Since only works that have been written about get their own GND a great deal of them will be relevant for Wikidata. I like the idea having a 80.000 works basic library. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of needing only the the GND-number to source things. Sourcing things is still a rather complicated thing. On the other hand, we should not make bot generated items out of the gnd. GND is a good source, but you will find numbers that are about multiple personalities with the same name, without anyone noticing.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your answers! I could check the quality of the data and eliminate doubled entries (even though I think that the GND-work-data is even better than the GND-person-data). But right now I think that the difference between 50.000 and 80.000 (minus the eliminated data) is not so big and the effort could be huge for me.. So maybe there a other things I could do.. - I really am sad that it's not possible to aim one page for every work and for every edition. This really would have been interesting. Even more because Open Library by far hasn't got the quality which I think is common here and I don't know of further projects. Maybe there should be "Wikicatalogue" or something.. Anyway I will try to join you and engage in WikiProject Books.--Mischa004 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Giftzwerg 88: "GND is a good source, but you will find numbers that are about multiple personalities with the same name, without anyone noticing." Mal kurz auf Deutsch: Es gibt (aus historischen Gründen) neben individualisierten Datensätzen (Tp) auch alte Namenseinträge (Tn), die nach und nach abgearbeitet werden. Die sind klar gekennzeichnet (de:Hilfe:GND#Personen) und betreffen nur Personen (nicht Werke). Tns sollen in Wikidata nicht verwendet werden und können per Bot gelöscht werden. @Mischa004: Ich denke nach wie vor, dass du einen Großteil der Werke (GND, Typ w) in Wikidata importieren kannst. Das Problem ist nur, wie man die Spreu vom Weizen trennt. (Wir hatten zum Beispiel schon einen Massenimport von Zeitschriftentiteln, unabhängig davon, ob zu der Zeitschrift ein Artikel in Wikipedia vorlag.) --Kolja21 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I will try to work on it! (PS: Sehe ich auch so, die nicht individualisierten Personen-Datensätze sind wirklich einfach nur unbrauchbarer Schrott, der sicher nichts auf Wikidata verloren hat).--Mischa004 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Little tool

I wrote a little tool which helps me to search for the notable works of an author at Wikidata. Don't know if something like this already exists. I can expand it if someone else wants more out of it. The URL: 78.47.144.202/wikidata_catalogue_directory/wikidata_catalogue.php--Mischa004 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Would be great having a tool like this! The first version seems only to find works if a) the author has an article on English WP and b) you know the exact spelling of the lemma. Example "Grass": "There are no notable works from this author!" (you have to write: "Günter_Grass"). There are problems with the German Umlaut: "Letzte Tänze". --Kolja21 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I improved it a little. Still I'll try to improve it further.--Mischa004 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Could you manage it, that the last name of an author is enough? --Kolja21 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There are ways to improve the results but for me this takes quite some time - I'm not a professional developer. Before I continue I want to ask more about the relevance of works. Maybe you can help me. 1) Where can I find discussions about the hard criteria of relevance of works and who decides in specific cases (every single work is relevant (notable or needed for reference) or irrelevant for Wikidata I suppose). 2) Are there technical limitations for the amount of Wikidata objects or not? 3) Why are we restricted to only add notable works (P800) or works needed for reference (P248)? 4) Am I going to disturb somebody if I start adding works which are not notable or works needed for reverance but written by a person who has got an article on Wikipedia? And would they be deleted? - Sorry, I kind of having the fix idea that an object for every published work wouldn't be an unreasonable aim. Thank you very much for answers,--Mischa004 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Improved again but takes longer now to search. Search for the last name only is - at this moment - only possible if there is a redirect in en.Wikipedia like there is for example for "kant" (to "Immanuel Kant"):--Mischa004 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mischa004, kurz auf Dt., weil es mir einfach fällt. WD:N legt die Relevanzkriterien relativ weit aus. Da Wikidata vor allem von Bots mit Daten angereichert und verwaltet wird, ist das wesentliche Kriterium, dass ein Objekt verlinkt ist. Trägt du bei einem Autor ein Werk als relevant ein, gibt es in der Regel keine Diskussion über die Bedeutung des Werkes. Gelöscht werden in der Regel nur verwaiste Objekte, aus denen nicht hervorgeht, warum sie angelegt wurden. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New property

I would like to have a new property "Ascribed author" (german: "Zugeschriebener Autor") of the datatype "item". Especially for old books the author often is not known but ascribed. I want to put my wish to Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work. Any comments?--Mischa004 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Mischa004 (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
possible creator (P1779). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you maybe could have used Author, with qualifier Ascribed author, couldn't you ?  :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RSL property

I request new property to link scanned source in Russian state library. See Wikidata:Property proposal/References. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: RSL scanned publication ID (P1815). --Kolja21 (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I request another property to link catalog record (books, magazines, maps, music sheets etc) in the Russian state library. See Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control‎. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Consists of

Is it possible to say: This literary work consists of three volumes? Example: [[1]] is a literary work that consists of three volumes. The volumes don't have a separate title, it's simply vol. 1, 2, and 3 of the work. However, they appeared separately in the sequence of finishing, vol. 1 in 1975, vol. 2 in 1978, vol. 3 in 1981. It is definitely not a series but simply parts of a work. - Other question: There are three original expressions of this work, one in German (first published) with Suhrkamp publishing (1975-1981), one in Swedish (some months later with Arbetarkultur, 1976-1981)), a third one in German again (1983) with Henschel (GDR). They are decidedly different and all of them have been acknowledged by the author himself. How do you manage this?--Mautpreller (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mautpreller: For consist of, I am not sure. For the three editions, each edition needs an specific item. Snipre (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
But how do you do this? de:Die Ästhetik des Widerstands is one work and has got one Wikipedia article. This work consists of three volumes but they are simply parts of the work and will never get an article. There are three "original" expressions that will never get an article of their own.
If I understand it correctly: There should be one wikidata object about the work, linked to the Wikipedia articles. It should have a property "consists of" (three volumes). Three more items about the original expressions of this work, in a certain way (I don't know how) connected to the object about the work as such. I should be willing to do this but I have still no idea how to manage.--Mautpreller (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Translations again, novels

Hi, I think you discussed already several times the topic of translated editions and - as I see above - interwiki. Since I would like to work a bit on belletristic novels I will have these problems and would like to understand these topics with an example, say The Physician (Q687787):

  1. as I understood, the general item The Physician (Q687787) should only include data that are meant for this general item but not for single editions and translations - so from my understanding the publisher (P123), ISBN-13 (P212) (and other that are not true in general) should be transferred to a new item called "The Physician, 1st edition USA"
  2. Since the general novel is existing in several translations the main item should be entitled with the different language names and include all interwikis, but if I want to add a german translation with own publisher, ISBN, Year, whatever ... I need to create "Der Medicus, 1. Auflage" that should have the property edition or translation of (P629) and has the same german title in every language.
  3. Is there a need to include properties like author (P50), original language of film or TV show (P364) and others, that are already true for the general item, also for the edition or translation of (P629) item? Especially for original language of film or TV show (P364): Should this be the language of the first original edition (englisch) or for the translation (german)?

Is this a correct way or did I oversee a point? Best, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. Yes. You should have one item about the work only meaning without all data about the edition of one book.
  2. Yes.
  3. Just add necessary data. Don't put the original language in the item of a translated edition. There is plan to merge the different languages properties in only one property.
Have a look at Wikidata:Sources to have a commom way to deal with sources or items about work. Snipre (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Achim Raschka: I've added the 1st edition The physician (1986) (Q20140324) and moved the properties. (The item is not complete but can be used as an example.) --Kolja21 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a doubt. If the book has 40 editions, how is it possible getting the data from the first original edition and the first Spanish edition without reading the data from the other 38 editions? Juan Mayordomo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You can use for example has edition or translation (P747) to find the edition you need, or the translation of the title, or the ISBN or ... BTW: Wikidata is not a library catalog. We only add the notable editions and/or the editions that are used as a source (cited in Wikipedia, used as a source in Wikidata etc.). --Kolja21 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
But I don't know which Q.... is the edition that I need. If I have The Raven (Q22726) with 27 editions for knowing the first English publication date I must read the 27 editions... There is not a qualifier for differentiate between the editions. Why it can't have a publication date (P577)? Juan Mayordomo (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverse pointer to a biographical article?

When we have a biographical article, eg. DNB00 article Palladius (DNB00) (Q19021746), it points to the main subject. What is the property to be used to reference the person back to the biographical article?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW it would be useful to have a page that covers biographical articles more generally, we have Wikidata:WikiProject DNB that could be used as a model.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
For encyclopedias you can use described by source (P1343). I proposed a property like "further reading" or "literature" (I don't remember the exact name) but it was rejected as too early. Maybe we should try again? It would be the supplement to notable work (P800). --Kolja21 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Property like "referring to"

I have seen it somewhere though cannot remember were, for article Ralph of Coggeshall (DNB00) (Q19091989), it is not actually an article, it is instead a published pointer to find the article elsewhere in the volumes. Could someone please identify that property, and I will document it for the DNB project. Thanks  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW @Hsarrazin: Why we need an item like biographical article (Q19389637)? It's an article + genre: biography. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
From my PoV, it is easier to add the one, than to add two, and I have seen similar done for other sub-classifications of instances. Cannot say that I have seen good guidance of when to stop a sub-classification.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kolja21:, to answer your question, that I did not see earlier, biographical article (Q19389637) is required to use on DNB and other wikisource items that point to biographical dictionaries on the article sublevel, some of them being just 3-5 lines long. Now, maybe the name/description could be rephrased in some languages, article is soooo vague.
Using article (Q191067) was misleading, since articles are mainly referring to periodicals articles. Those items were very often misidentified as human (Q5), since the label was the name of the concerned person. :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
As an additional point to Hsarrazin's, where this is being used if can align with the use of "instance of:edition", in which case the "genre:biography" should only apply to the article, not to the other instance, so I like its more accurate classification.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata property for authority control for works

Wikidata property for authority control for works (Q19833377) is a subclass of authority control and work. Unfortunately it is used for properties like ISBN-13 (P212) and SUDOC editions (P1025). Both properties are only used for editions and are not part of authority control. @Pigsonthewing, Nono314: Should we remove Q19833377 in these cases or should we create a new item "Wikidata property for editions"? --Kolja21 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

add an ISBN-13 (P212) property to entities that have an ISBN-10 (P957)

According to wdq, there are 10111 entities with a ISBN-10 (P957) claim but without a ISBN-13 (P212): do you think I can go through this list and generate the P957? From an external app developers point of view, being sure that every entity that has an ISBN can be found by its ISBN-13 would spare an API call, namely having to check also by the ISBN-10. Any reason why it would be a bad idea? -- Zorglub27 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualifier for number of volumes?

For Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford, 1715–1886 (Q19036877) I wish to state that the edition of a work is published in four volumes. I don't see an obvious means to record that through something with the word "volume", can anyone identify a suitable property to use? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to create an item for every volume with volume (P478) just write in the description: "work in 4 volumes". --Kolja21 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Noting components of a non-fiction work?

Has the projects team given thought on how or should a work can have its sub-parts annotated in the Wikidata item? [We don't cover it in the guidance] An example for me is the recent work s:en:The Slippery Slope which is a series of essays. So each of the essays may or may not be worthy of its separate item, or may be worthy of simply listing on the work. Comment from those who are more export in the curatorial science would be helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-fiction or fiction should make no difference. Imho we can use in this case Wikidata:WikiProject Books#Collection of works. Does that help? --Kolja21 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
BTW: I'm not sure if we can use has part(s) (P527) as a pair of published in (P1433), since we have already has part(s) (P527) <-> part of (P361). --Kolja21 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly, I use that methodology to pair DNB articles "published in" (article) <-> "described by source" (person). What I am looking for that is more aligned with the parent work to describe its contents. If the call is that each essay should be separately noted, that is possible, I am just not sure that each would be notable in its own right.

To note that fictional works would be less likely to have their chapters identified, as they are just a part of the whole, and don't particularly have a life outside of the whole. Non-fiction works are and will be by their nature, a part of an incomplete spectrum.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Current issues for WikiProject Books

WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. In property deletion discussions, we keep hearing that this or that project must change its approach because it's not compatible with the approach chosen by WikiProject Books. While I can understand that solutions for one project can have impacts on others, it seems strange that other projects must change their approach completely for this to progress. Thus my question:

What are the current issues and challenges for this project? --- Jura 06:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Comment se fait-il que, quand je cherche "Der Untergeher" sur Wikipédia en français, j'obtienne, pour la section Résultats sur Wikidata (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Recherche?search=der+untergeher&sourceid=Mozilla-search) : Untergeher Der, Livre par Thomas Bernhard de Alfred A. Knopf. Premièrement ce n'est pas clair, on ne comprends plus si Der Untergeher est un livre de Thomas Bernhard ou d'Alfred Knopf. Deuxièmement, que vient faire cet Alfred Knopf, l'éditeur américain du livre, ici ? L'éditeur français est, je crois, Gallimard. Cette donnée n'étant pas renseignée sur Wikidata, on affiche automatiquement l'éditeur américain (au lieu de, je sais pas, rien, ou l'éditeur autrichien, ou allemand) ? Si l'éditeur français avait été renseigné, on aurait eu Gallimard ou Knopf ? Qui a décidé que par défaut on devait afficher l'éditeur américain d'un livre ? En fait je ne suis pas sûr de pourquoi on aboutit à l'affichage de ce Knopf, quelqu'un peut-il nous éclairer ? (Unsigned: 19:55, 14. Okt. 2015‎ 78.250.197.145)

Item: The Loser (Q358958). --Kolja21 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
La description est générée je crois par un script de Magnus Manske, cf. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=342 Si c'est pas clair, il faudrait s'adresser au traducteur en français pour améliorer ça. Sinon je vais créer un élément pour l'édition française. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried to clean up stuffs a little bit. Please comment if I made a mistake author  TomT0m / talk page 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy merging

Even the items that are used as examples are not save from merging. The work Mister President (Q3050361) has been merged over a month ago with one of his editions [2] and no one has noticed it. We should implement a warning if a user tries to merge two items with contradictory instance of (P31). --Kolja21 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think that there is a whole lot of protection and warnings that should take place prior to merging, some "are you sure?" and "are you REALLY sure?" based on the differences of numbers of criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Danger Will Robinson — Too many Wikidata entities accessed

@Kolja21: et al. The page on the obverse is throwing multiple errors "Too many Wikidata entities accessed". I don't have the time at the moment, however, either a limit needs to be upped or some judicious pruning needs to take place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I rem'd the Authority Control section and seems to have recovered the main components of the page. I will let someone look for a more permanent solution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Weirdly, I undid the rem. to see where the page categorised with all the problems, and it reappeared without error. <shrug> So it is recovered though should be considered on the danger list due to our sitting near the tipping point.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably a temporary error. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Translation

It's time to make this project page translatable don't you think ? author  TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism ressources

When a work is a criticism of another, how do we model this in Wikidata ?

The example I have in mind is Grasse Funicular (Q16637474)  View with Reasonator View with SQID which is a public project apparently unlinkely to be realized at that point. The website initially mentioned to be an official website in not actually an official website when you checkout but it's a non official one of people against the project. I don't really want to know if or not we should keep this link, this is a question other projects, but to know : do we have enough properties to express that this is a criticsm website about the project ? And more generally if a work is a pamphlet of another, or something ? I tried something, I don't know if this is relevant after all. also @Coyau: since he semi automatedly added the link and might be interested. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper number of copies and number of editions

Défense de la France (Q21528945)  View with Reasonator View with SQID has been printed 47 times. How do we express that ? author  TomT0m / talk page 15:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I don't know if quantity (P1114) is meant for cases like this. It's a newspaper. So Wikidata:WikiProject Periodicals would be a better place to ask. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, yet another WikiProject in my watchlist. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Use for tracking many, many editions of...

I collect Lewis Carroll and have rather a lot of editions of some of his books. Should wikidata be the kind of place where information about the many editions of these books can be stored? Or would people say not to do that?

I saw that an author has a property for "notable works" and not for "works". This seems odd, but I may be misunderstanding how things work. Would one put in the books, or the editions, and link them to the author thus? But then the connection is not visible in the author's info?

Sorry for the newbie questions. Just trying to establish the boundaries of what might be doable here. RayKiddy (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIU you can put editions in Wikidata, e.g., for Danish works we have Den Danske Salmebog (Q12308041) and the 2003 edition Den Danske Salmebog, 2003 edition (Q12308040). They are linked by edition or translation of (P629) and has edition or translation (P747).
My present understanding of notable work (P800) is that we use it on the author page to link a couple of the most important works, while the work pages link with author (P50) to the author, i.e., the author does not link to all his/her work. I previously thought that notable work (P800) should link to all the works that an author made, but it seems that this is not how it is presently being used. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

Imho we need a property for books and articles about an item beside the source for individual statements. Please comment here: Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work#Further reading. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Instance of literary work

There are 8610 items with instance of (P31)literary work (Q7725634): 8238 of them have instance of (P31)literary work (Q7725634) instead of instance of (P31)book (Q571), while 282 of them have both. Wikidata:WikiProject Books doesn't make mention of Q7725634, while I found this thread from which instance of (P31)literary work (Q7725634) seems incorrect. Should a bot do something? --Epìdosis 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not reach to the same conclusion after reading that thread. literary work (Q7725634) should be used for works of literature that are not books (physical objects). For instance, most times in the case of a poem (Q5185279), a short story (Q49084), or a play (Q25379). Normally, they are part of a poetry collection (Q2150386) or a short story collection (Q1279564), only then making a book. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 07:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: So having items which are both literary works and books is incorrect ... what should we do with them? --Epìdosis 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My first idea was to drop literary work (Q7725634) in such cases, but now that I think about it more... My Century (Q1669964) is both a book (Q571) and a literary work (Q7725634), but there are cases when a book is not a literary work (or a literary work is not a book, as mentioned above). For example, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Q15991228) is a book, but not a literary work, whereas The Little Match Girl (Q11876) is a literary work, but not a book. I do not see any problem of using both of them as long as it is the appropriate to do so, but to stay using only book or literary work when that is the case. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 22:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
With Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Q15991228) (P31=book (Q571)) is not all right. Look at the values of original language of film or TV show (P364) and translator (P655). Is this wikidata item desribes original french book or its english translation? Really this item is a mixture of two separate version, edition or translation (Q3331189). IHMO the difference between book (Q571) and version, edition or translation (Q3331189) is not clear enough... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Q15991228) a literary work? I'm not familiar with it, but from what I've briefly looked at, I don't see why it wouldn't be one. - Nikki (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books/2015&oldid=598883285"