Talk:Q11838
Autodescription — Little Red Riding Hood (Q11838)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Little Red Riding Hood” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Publication date
[edit]Hello Elyaqim, thank you for the reference. I nevertheless tend to remove this statement for the following reason: Little Red Riding Hood (Q11838) represents a folk tale, an orally transmitted tale without a fixed form. It is not a literary work. There exist several written and published versions, like Le Petit Chaperon rouge (Q51029984) and Rotkäppchen (Q51029839) (to name the most prominent). If you have a look at the poem by Egbert of Liège ("De puella a lupellis seruata" (English: "About a Girl Saved from Wolf Cubs")) (you can find an English translation on page 559 of A Fairy Tale from before Fairy Tales: Egbert of Liège's "De puella a lupellis seruata" and the Medieval Background of "Little Red Riding Hood") it differs quite significantly from the "standard" Perrault-/Grimm-versions.
To express that there exists such an (contested, see page 562 in the article mentioned above) early "proto"-version of Red Riding Hood I would tend to create an own item for the poem and link it to Little Red Riding Hood (Q11838) via manifestation of (P1557). Do you see any problems with this approach? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Valentina.Anitnelav. Folk tales are transmitted both orally and (admittedly later) textually, and indicating early publication dates therefor on Wikidata should not be taken to mean that the story originated as a literary work, especially as Wikidata allows multiple values for the publication date (P577). The use of manifestation of (P1557) for literary versions of folk tales is quite sensible, but there is no reciprocal has manifestation property that would appear on the folk tale’s record; might we compromise by adding publication dates only with qualifiers or references? I also feel that indicating that a folk story is in the public domain is entirely reasonable (and a bot has apparently restored some of the copyright information I had added), so to remove it would suggest that the story is somehow copyrighted when in fact it is free and available for anyone to reuse, unencumbered by any copyright restrictions. Tell me what you think of the edit I’m about to make. —Elyaqim (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- It feels weird (as there is no fixed Red Riding Hood that may be published) but it may be a compromise, Elyaqim. I agree that it is reasonable to say it is in the public domain, but the reason (determination method) is wrong: This tale was always in the public domain, as it is a folk tale. Is there a possibility to express that? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I found public domain as not covered by copyright law (Q50551851), this seems to be a bit more appropriate to me (but I'm not copyright expert). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- It feels weird (as there is no fixed Red Riding Hood that may be published) but it may be a compromise, Elyaqim. I agree that it is reasonable to say it is in the public domain, but the reason (determination method) is wrong: This tale was always in the public domain, as it is a folk tale. Is there a possibility to express that? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the most indisputable reason the story is in the public domain is because it predates any federal copyright law by hundreds of years, but unfortunately there is no item for that. —Elyaqim (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)