On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:12 AM, billinghurst <billinghu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From my point of view, an upload form should be focused at Wikidata more > than at Commons, anything else is back-to-front. > > If we are talking about a published work that it is published is its own > "notability" and transcends whether it is at Wikisource, Commons, or > Wikipedia, such that it is published makes it Wikidata-able (to coin a > word). We can easily support this statement as copyright alone will prevent > a work from appearing at Wikisource or WikiCommons, and similarly some > published works may not be individually notable for Wikipedia, but may be > so for other reference, thinking here of things that have a DOI. > > *Then* comes the issue of which site wishes to utilise the data. So > having Wikidata as the primary entry point to enter "book" data, and then > call it from other places as required seems the logical place to start for > any new work at any of the places. > I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but the Book Upload Form should be primarly on Wikisource, listing Wikidata properties, and uploading the image on Commons. All the metadata would be the same, stored on Wikidata, and transcluded in COmmons and Wikisource. On Wikidata, you can *already* go, insert a new item or modifying and existing one, adding all the book properties you want. Books properties can be found here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force Now, of course we would very much like a tool like this ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/missing_props.js), which suggests all the missing properties when the item is a book. We would need it also for journals, and journal articles. But where the Upload form, right now, is needed the most is on Wikisource (and Commons), IMHO. Aubrey
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
