The issue with the approach is:

* The article page at the WP already exists for notable books, such so does the WD page, and it will be for the instance of a "book".

* We create "edition" pages, so for notable books we are already at a point of difference.

Presumably from WP we want the ability to link to the WS book via an infobox or a {{Wikisource ...}} template based on the WD data without the need to edit it ever again. It is an indirect link.

Similarly there is the situation reversed from WS to the WP from the header template linking where it is all controlled from the template sucking WD.

We are wanting this whether the link is on the interwiki is on the the one WD page or on two as originally described.

Re one edition, so one page that may the case mostly now, the more notable a work, the less likely that is to be the case.

Regards, Billinghurst


On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:59 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:46 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@googlemail.com>:
Not sure I see the problem.

Same for me.

1. A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
2. Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
3. Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page

It's a bit more complex than that but I agree.

A large number (a majority?) of works have only one edition, in this case there is only one item on Wikidata, it's even easier : no problem.
There is disambig-like pages on wikisources for works. In this case, no problem again, you can link Wikipedia and Wikisource directly : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q83186
Somtimes, there is wikipedia article about editions, again there is no problem here.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books is very useful, most of the cases are describe and explain.

Cdlt, ~nicolas
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l