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. (<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q11838>)