Talk:Q2001305

Special:Diff/1304051152

I think what you refer to by "can be employer, have headquarters, etc." is rather television station (Q1616075) or broadcaster (Q15265344). Single organization that has employees, headquarter etc. often has multiple channels and so, in general, channel and organization are distinct. Another thing is that some Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items may more or less blend channel and organization into one, especially if station has one channel. This however shouldn't be a reason to make an inaccurate claim about all channels, including those for which distinction is made clear on Wikipedia/Wikidata. Then, if it's desirable to keep the distinction fuzzy for particular channel, a bit less messy solution would probably be to set it as an instance of both television channel (Q2001305) and television station (Q1616075). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6488:152C:84D1:1AD8 09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(The above message was posted on User talk:Neo-Jay)

@2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6488:152C:84D1:1AD8: A TV station (Q1616075) can have multiple TV channels (Q2001305), each of which is an organization (group of people) and can have its own employees and headquarters. And a TV channel can be the value of "original broadcaster" (P449), which clearly indicates that a TV channel can be a broadcaster (Q15265344). So it is appropriate to add "subclass of (P279): broadcaster (Q15265344)" to "television channel" (Q2001305), as I did in this edit.--Neo-Jay (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can use "television channel" in such broad sense (more or less synonymously with "television station" or in sense that it's a department of the latter), but nonetheless the organization relation is not true for all television channels. Organizational division is not necessary for several channels of single broadcaster, and if a broadcaster operates or owns several channels, then you probably wouldn't say that broadcaster operates broadcasters (which is implied by this subclass relation).

A little while ago I got confused by P449, too. It seems this property is used mostly for television channels, and that's what some aliases also suggest, but label and this constraint suggest that it's instead or also for broadcasters. This property and its uses would probably benefit from some refinement, so that it was clear what is it actually for. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6488:152C:84D1:1AD8 11:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which television channels are not "organizational divisions". In my humble opinion, a television channel is an entity "comprising one or more people and having a particular purpose", which is the definition of organization by the English Wikipedia article. All television channels can be seen as suborganizations of their parent organizations (television stations). A suborganization is also an organization, and a sub-broadcaster is also a broadcaster. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Take for example BBC Four (Q787211) or Yle TV2 (Q2031832). It's rather hard to identify these as organizational units, rather than television channels in conventional sense, i.e. frequency or some other path for trasmitting program. Possibly in BBC (Q9531) and Yle (Q54718) respectively a few staff members focus on particular channels, but generally there isn't such division between staff of these organizations. Even if some other broadcaster has only one channel, then organization and its product or service can be still easily differentiated.

I'm not sure if such thing as "sub-broadcaster" exists in real life. If it does then I'd rather expect it to be a subsidiary company that, apart from its parent company's television channels, operates its own television channels. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2D3D:CBB7:AB94:939A 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

en:BBC Four (Q787211) has a section "Organisation", which clarifies that this channel has its own channel controller and Channel Editor. The headquarter location (Ristimäki, Tampere) of Yle TV2 (Q2031832) is different from that (Helsinki, Finland) of its owner, Yle (Q54718). These indicate that both BBC Four and Yle TV2 are organizational units. Every television channel has it own staff members (even if these members may have other roles in the parent organizations), and meets the definition of "organization". By sub-broadcaster, I simply mean a broadcaster's suborganization that is responsible for broadcasting certain content. Such a suborganization, in my view, is also a broadcaster. Why must a broadcaster be at the company's level, not at the company suborganization's level? --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as said some staff members, like channel controller, may focus on particular channel. However there is little reason to think such individual staff member or a couple of more close workers necessarily form an organizational unit. As for "headquarters" of Yle TV2, this seems to be a location for related operations or location from where the channel is broadcast. Yle's detailed organisation however does not include individual channels. Also as said, television channel primarily is something else than an organisation, and exists as such regardless by which organizational units related staff members are allocated.

Broadcaster doesn't have to be at the company's level, as far as I can see. More interesting question though is why shouldn't we differentiate between television channel (service, trasmission path) and organization operating such entity. Clearly different kinds of statements apply to each, on the one hand trasmission methods, frequencies, programming and a like, on the other hand management, people, rights ownership and a like.

By the way, what in your opinion is the distinction between television station (Q1616075) and television channel (Q2001305) then? Above you agree that station may have multiple channels, but if both are simply organizational units, then is it equally plausible to say that a channel may have multiple stations? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2D3D:CBB7:AB94:939A 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC Four does not need to have many staff members. An organization can even comprise just one person (see definition of organization). That Yle does not introduce its channels on its organization page does not mean that Yle TV2 is not a suborganization of Yle. As long as Yle TV2 comprises one or more people and has a particular purpose, it is an organization. A television channel of course may also refer to something other than an organization. I do not argue to remove "subclass of (P279): channel (Q733553)" from this item. What I did was to add just another value, broadcaster (Q15265344), to P279 (subclass of). As for differentiating "between television channel (service, transmission path) and organization operating such entity", that would mean splitting almost every existing television-channel item into two, one for the service, and the other for the organization. This is, in my view, unnecessary and may cause more troubles. Now Wikidata items for newspapers have information on both media and organization. Why can't items for television channels also have information on both? As to television station (Q1616075) and television channel (Q2001305), I think channels are suborganizations of stations. Stations are not suborganizations of channels. So a channel cannot have multiple stations. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't argue it's possible to form an organisation on basis of an individual television channel, but there isn't much of an evidence that in these cases some related staff members actually are considered as an organizational unit, while it's probably beyond doubt that these television channels primarily exist as services or transmission paths.

I don't think it's suitable to remove subclass: channel (Q733553), as this is much closer to what a television channel in most contexts is. Contrarily I see little harm from removing organization link. The latter relation produces confusion as it is often unclear, at best, if or in what way is television channel an organization. If P449 actually is for both broadcasters and channels, then its constraint can be adjusted accordingly instead. Ideally, to allow more accurate statements and to make the data less varied, it'd be good to decide if property value should be e.g. BBC or BBC Four. Also, different item for company or broadcasters often exists anyway, so not much of splitting may be necessary. And as suggested above, instead of splitting, an option is to set individual television channel as both channel and station (organization), in case it really is clear that item is about both. Two examples given above are set like this already, too. Though the latter in these cases probably is a result of users working around bad property constraint, rather than meaningful statements. Besides, after another user removed the organization link and before you readded it, this item already was without it over two years.

Items for newspapers have information on both media and organization? I suppose in some cases it's again possible to mix the data in similar manner, but I'd assume that there are also many items about newspaper publishers that are actually in any case distinct from outlet(s) that they publish (e.g. The New York Times (Q9684) and The New York Times Company (Q2529982)). In this case it's more clear that newspaper has, in additon to publisher, also an editorial board, but newspaper outlet and its editorial board are also different things.

I think the goal should be an accurate data. So that it's clear what is the data about, in this case channel or organization, and so that it'd be possible to query both broadcasters and channels that they broadcast (without getting both when querying for one of these). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:45D8:2BBD:B9FF:4F2F 16:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you need to consider some related staff members as an organizational unit? If these members form an entity that has a particular purpose, the entity will meet the definition of organization. Every television channel has its members and its particular purpose, and therefore is an organization. So adding "subclass of organization (broadcaster)" to television channel, in my view, does not produce confusion. A television channel is not a television station, but a suborganization of a television station. Adding "instance of (P31): television station" to a television channel is not appropriate. The New York Times (Q9684), as a suborganization of The New York Times Company (Q2529982), has properties "subsidiary" (P355), "owner of" (P1830), and "headquarters location" (P159), and it has part (P527): New York Times Editorial Board (Q87193782, a group of people). All of these prove that Q9684 (The New York Time) refers to not only a medium, but also an organization. How can we split Q9684 (The New York Times) into two items, one for the paper, and the other for the organization? Also, it is not a good idea to split a television channel into two items. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If an entity is an organization then I'd expect that in some source it is described a separate legal entity, or it is explicitly described as part of organizational structure of another organization. I don't see how some allocated staff members working on a television channel necessarily make it into an organization. Similary, if author, editor and some more people work on a book and book gets published, then you'd say that book is organization?

Setting an individual television channel as instance of both channel and station is far from ideal, but as said, I see less harm done this way, as then at least other items where distinction is made clear wouldn't be affected.

In some very loose sense you may describe newspaper as an organization, but again, primarily it is something else, i.e. a publication. See en:newspaper that defines newspaper as a publication and publication only. Organization may work on a publcation, it may publish it, but this does not make organization into a publication (or publisher into publication). These current individual statements under Q9684 are quite strange and dubious. Given "subsidiary" in fact was another newspaper that was merged. Given "owner of" item is another publication, and it'd probably be more straighforward to say the publisher is actually owner for both. Given "headquarters" is again rather headquarters of the publisher or work location of the editorial borard. Also there must be a better way to link editorial board (the latter doesn't get published as part of a publication, does it). Other properties like P3912, P407, P291 etc. however are for a newspaper in different and more conventional sense (publication). So I'd say that some cleanup wouldn't hurt this item. What is there to split? Items for publisher and editorial board that better match organizational statements exist already anyway. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:4C65:C21C:CE9:703C 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have removed "subclass of (P279): broadcaster (Q15265344)" from "television channel" (Q2001305) per your opinion, and added "class (P2308): television channel Q2001305" as "property constraint (P2302): value type constraint (Q21510865)" to "original broadcaster" (P449). Now television channel (Q2001305) is only a subclass of (P279) channel (Q733553), which is not a subclass of service (Q7406919). Do you think that "subclass of service" should be added to television channel? As for editorial board, I guess that it can be operator (P137) or editor (P98) of a newspaper. Thank you for your discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I vaguely described channel as a service above, but I'm not sure now that I look a little closer. For example schema.org describes television channel as a broadcast service, but at the same time it also describes broadcast service that may be offered on a channel.

By the way, there's also radio channel (Q25582589) that is also currently set as a subclass of broadcaster. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8472:16F7:66D:9E28 08:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The term "television channel" is also used to mean the service provided on the channel, or "programming service" (see this explanation on en:Television channel#Non-terrestrial television channels). If Q2001305 (television channel) is a subclass of service, we probably can add a specific television channel as a value of P121 (item operated or service operated) to its television station. And I just undid my edit by removing "subclass of (P279): broadcaster (Q15265344)" from "radio channel" (Q25582589). Thanks for reminding me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)