Wikidata:Property proposal/minimum age
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Minimum age[edit]
| Description | minimum age for, for example, movie certification |
|---|---|
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
| Example | 18 certificate (Q4557532) -> 18 (qualified as "years") |
| Source | various film certification authorities |
- Motivation
We need to think of a way of describing the items (e.g. 18 certificate (Q4557532)) used by media or game certification properties (e.g BBFC rating (P2629)). Unless anyone has a better approach? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
- I would have an item with a particular rating ("E for Everyone"/"M for Mature") with this property on it. I think that's what you're proposing, so I support. No need to qualify--just make it number with units? --Izno (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- On the one hand, I
Support the property, if only we could find a more descriptive label. On the other hand, I'd 
Comment that we need a way to indicate the nature of this "minimum age" (we really need a better name), whether it means that parental guidance is suggested for ages above, not recommended for ages below but not restricted, restricted to ages above unless accompanied by an adult, restricted to ages above, or adult content. (In Hungary we've only had the first two. It's fascinating to me that there are Western countries where you won't be admitted to a screening if you're not old enough.) – Máté (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, even the rating of "R" in America allows for parental supervision, if memory serves. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Freebase uses Minimum Accompanied Age and Minimum Unaccompanied Age. Can we do similar? -- Netoholic (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Minimum Accompanied Age" is only used on EIRIN and RSVR (RARS), nine ratings, and in all cases it's set to the same value as "Minimum Unaccompanied Age" (which is used 121 times). Even if the system made sense and was used, it doesn't begin to describe properly the complexity of the issue. On the other hand "minimum unaccompanied age" already sounds somewhat better than just "minimum age". We may have a "minimum unaccompanied age" property (this one), and an "accompanying criterion" property/qualifier with item datatype with possible values: N/A (Q929804) (when the value is 0)/parental guidance suggested/not recommended/accompanying adult required/restricted/adult content. – Máté (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- "accompanying criterion" would have to be a
Stringmonolingual text type. If we're going to do that, just label it "restriction" to make it more widely useful. We can also make an opposite property called "allowance". Those two along with "minimum age" could then all be used in various other contexts, like video games or any other age-limited activities. -- Netoholic (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)- I assume, you're thinking of monolingual text, not string. In any case, item datatype would have more (research) use, as categories with similar nature could be easily grouped together, or even weighted according to their "strictness" when calculating an average rating (of a work/a system/a year) to be used as a variable. – Máté (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the very subtle wording differences would make managing items pretty daunting. See en:Motion picture rating system for all the variations. I'd rather manage them as values within a single item for each rating. The restriction text isn't conceptually a different "thing" from the rating, its descriptive. If you want to group and weight, use the ratings items themselves, not the "accompanying criterion". -- Netoholic (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article you linked is exactly the example how you can easily group them and use the item-system on them, just take a look at the comparison table. This is invaluable information that you need for grouping and weighting, the rating items themselves are not enough. The two, however, are not mutually exclusive. We can store both the item-type nature of the rating and the exact wording of their description quoted from the corresponding law or guidelines. All I'm saying that the item-type is something that is useful. Especially given, that the description often doesn't even gives you the true nature of the rating, but you have to go back to the law and find about it in the context where it is defined. – Máté (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the very subtle wording differences would make managing items pretty daunting. See en:Motion picture rating system for all the variations. I'd rather manage them as values within a single item for each rating. The restriction text isn't conceptually a different "thing" from the rating, its descriptive. If you want to group and weight, use the ratings items themselves, not the "accompanying criterion". -- Netoholic (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I assume, you're thinking of monolingual text, not string. In any case, item datatype would have more (research) use, as categories with similar nature could be easily grouped together, or even weighted according to their "strictness" when calculating an average rating (of a work/a system/a year) to be used as a variable. – Máté (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- "accompanying criterion" would have to be a
- "Minimum Accompanied Age" is only used on EIRIN and RSVR (RARS), nine ratings, and in all cases it's set to the same value as "Minimum Unaccompanied Age" (which is used 121 times). Even if the system made sense and was used, it doesn't begin to describe properly the complexity of the issue. On the other hand "minimum unaccompanied age" already sounds somewhat better than just "minimum age". We may have a "minimum unaccompanied age" property (this one), and an "accompanying criterion" property/qualifier with item datatype with possible values: N/A (Q929804) (when the value is 0)/parental guidance suggested/not recommended/accompanying adult required/restricted/adult content. – Máté (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support as proposed. Unit should be year. Use qualifiers if needed.
--- Jura 00:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Máté, Jura1: 
Done as proposed. While there is much more that could be modelled on individual rating items, considering the various different rating systems around the world, this is a good start. Also, this property could be useful in other contexts. --Srittau (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)