Talk:Q5398426
Autodescription — television series (Q5398426)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “television series” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- television series (Q5398426)
- television program (Q15416)
- broadcasting program (Q11578774)
- moving image (Q10301427)
- audiovisual work (Q2431196)
- project (Q170584)
- series of creative works (Q7725310)
- television program (Q15416)
- television series (Q5398426)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
television series⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Interwiki conflict  | |||
| Items involved: Q7725310Talk, Q5398426Talk | Status:  resolved
| ||
serial work in and out television. Infovarius (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
| Interwiki conflict | |||
| Items involved: Q7724161Talk, Q5398426Talk | Status: resolved
| ||
teleserial vs TV-series. Infovarius (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Weird superclasses through "brand"[edit]
I'm not sure television series should be considered a subclass of brand (Q431289), it adds all sorts of weird/irrelevant ancestor classes to the tree making queries more error-prone. For instance, it causes every TV series to have the ancestor classes written work (Q47461344) / text (Q234460) / document (Q49848). Semantically I don't think TV series are strictly a type of "brand" either (though they can overlap). Even classes like media franchise (Q196600) don't use it. I've taken the liberty of deprecating the claim, but if you think that's an error feel free to restore its rank (and preferably justify why you think it should remain). It may be the case that the real issue exists further up the "brand" class tree somewhere. You can view a representation of it at Talk:Q431289 --NoInkling (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this really a subclass of television program (Q15416)?[edit]
The description of television program (Q15416) is "segment of audiovisual content intended for broadcast on television". Subclass of: audiovisual work (Q2431196). But a television series is not on its own audiovisual content intended to be broadcast. I guess the only way this would make sense is if the entire series is broadcast in one go, but even then I think it makes more sense to talk about individual episodes that are audiovisual works, and treat the series as just the collection of those episodes. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)