Wikidata:Property proposal/broadcast by
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
broadcast by[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | the channel, network, website or service that broadcast this item on tv, radio or online. |
|---|---|
| Represents | broadcaster (Q15265344) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | instance or subclass of broadcasting program (Q19968906), event (Q1656682) |
| Allowed values | instance or subclass of broadcaster (Q15265344), website (Q35127), film distributor (Q368290), online video platform (Q559856), service on Internet (Q1668024), online service provider (Q1641122) |
| Example |
|
| See also | original broadcaster (P449) |
- Motivation
The need for this was identified in two independent but concurrent discussions at project chat: WD:PC#Top goalscorer and tv network (permalink) and WD:PC#original network (P449) (permalink).
It is intended as a superproperty of original broadcaster (P449) (which seems to be specifically important for drama series) as has a narrower domain and a single value restriction. This property will have many values in some cases (e.g. Olympic games) and those values should (but not must) be qualified with valid in place (P3005) and can also take other qualifiers such as applies to part (P518) live television (Q431102) when live coverage and highlights are carried by different broadcasters/channels. The allowed values for this property are intended to be broad to cope with the different structure of particularly TV broadcasting around the world (brought up as an issue in the second linked discussion). The hierarchy of internet broadcasters/broadcasting networks on Wikidata does not appear to be well structured at present hence the several entries here and I still expect to see violations of that until it's cleaned up. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)- Support Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Runner1928 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'd suggest this should be used with start/end date qualifiers. Possibly also a location qualifier of some sort as well. Danrok (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've used valid in place (P3005) as a location qualifier in the examples, and suggest that including that (or another location qualifier if there are better ones) is added as a constraint. Start time and end time qualifiers should be used for drama series but I don't want to add them as a requirement as they wont add anything for live sporting events for example. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Use original broadcaster (P449), relabelled if necessary, with qualifiers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: As noted in the linked project chat discussion and directly above, original broadcaster (P449) is not suitable for this use as it has a narrower domain and single value restriction that do not match this proposed usage. As also noted above original broadcaster (P449) is widely used for its intended use and that is apparently an important element of data for drama series (and possibly other uses). Further the proposed constraint requiring a geographical qualifier is not necessary for the intended and actual use of original broadcaster (P449). Together this means that if we did convert it into a "broadcast by" property we would be required to:
- Remove the existing constraints
- Broaden the domain
- Change the label and description in every language
- Determine a suitable qualifier to indicate that the value is for the original network
- Add that qualifier to each of the current uses (just shy of 28,000)
- Rewrite any and all templates and queries that use the property in it's current form to use the qualifier-based form to extract the same information
- Write and monitor a complex constraint to ensure that it has a single value qualified as the original network, regardless of the total number of values
- Write and monitor a complex constraint to ensure that values not qualified as the original network are qualified with valid in place (P3005) or another geographical qualifier.
- Or we could avoid all of that by not trying to get one property to fulfil multiple roles. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: As noted in the linked project chat discussion and directly above, original broadcaster (P449) is not suitable for this use as it has a narrower domain and single value restriction that do not match this proposed usage. As also noted above original broadcaster (P449) is widely used for its intended use and that is apparently an important element of data for drama series (and possibly other uses). Further the proposed constraint requiring a geographical qualifier is not necessary for the intended and actual use of original broadcaster (P449). Together this means that if we did convert it into a "broadcast by" property we would be required to:
Yes, I read the linked discussion; I don't agree with the comment you cite; nor that a single value qualifier is correct even for the current limited usage; nor that it is necessary to "add [a] qualifier to each of the current uses"; but even if it is, that's a trivial task for a bot or for QuickStatements. We shouldn't use new properties as sticking-plasters for problems with existing properties or their constraints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to oppose (yet), but why does "original network" exist? Why this proposal? My suggestion is that these are both duplicate properties to "publisher". Can someone suggest otherwise? --Izno (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is currently being used with a single value restriction to represent the single network that originally broadcast the item. Templates, etc that use the property will be expecting a single value and will need some way to determine which is the single original network if the property changes to accepting multiple values. I don't know why it is important, but given that it is in very widespread use for it's current role the evidence strongly points to it being important, and consequently some alternative way of representing the same data will be needed. These are questions that should be asked of the people who are currently using the property rather than changing it under them (yet none of you have even attempted to let them know change is being proposed). The people proposing the change are the ones who need to demonstrate that no functionality will be lost. This new superproperty is being proposed because original broadcaster (P449) is too specific and not suitable for broadening. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- A date qualifier (mandatory) seems sufficient to me--and where two networks broadcast it simultaneously (for which "original network" completely fails to account), what then? Those wikis are still out in the dark with a "single value" constraint. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have left a note at Property talk:P449. There are 5 Russian projects noted as using that property who need to be informed, but a Russian speaker needs to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is currently being used with a single value restriction to represent the single network that originally broadcast the item. Templates, etc that use the property will be expecting a single value and will need some way to determine which is the single original network if the property changes to accepting multiple values. I don't know why it is important, but given that it is in very widespread use for it's current role the evidence strongly points to it being important, and consequently some alternative way of representing the same data will be needed. These are questions that should be asked of the people who are currently using the property rather than changing it under them (yet none of you have even attempted to let them know change is being proposed). The people proposing the change are the ones who need to demonstrate that no functionality will be lost. This new superproperty is being proposed because original broadcaster (P449) is too specific and not suitable for broadening. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Relabel original broadcaster (P449). Thierry Caro (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- For the reasons expressed above, I very strongly oppose using original broadcaster (P449) for this purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Thryduulf, P449 should not be meddled with (and it is used in more Wikipedias than what's listed on the talk page). However, the single value constraint is quite meaningless on P449 as well, as a series may have several original broadcasters over its course, but they definitely need to be dealt with separately from simulcast, encore and foreign market broadcasters. (We've been having a similar discussion about title (P1476)). – Máté (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support original broadcaster (P449) may need some tweaking but it seems it is naturally only a sub-property of this proposal, and stretching it to include all cases represents a loss of information. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need to change this practice of "notify wikis first, then decide". It completely calcifies our property change process. I will likely be starting an RFC or some such. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- People who are using a property need to have a voice in discussions about whether and how to change that property, and they cannot be expected to follow every discussion on Wikidata on the off-chance that it might be relevant to their work. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf, Edgars2007, Izno, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro, Pigsonthewing:
Done The majority finds the property helpful. ChristianKl (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps they do; but this is not a poll, and your role as property creator is to evaluate the points made, not count votes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
