Wikidata:Property proposal/BBFC ID

BBFC ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: BBFC reference (P8794) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for a film or video game on BBFC's official website
Represents	British Board of Film Classification (Q861670)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	film (Q11424), video game (Q7889)
Example 1	Postal (Q700905) → AVV252599
Example 2	Manhunt 2 (Q1799879) → DDM235014
Example 3	Postal (Q1049783) → ADM151575
Source	https://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/latest-releases
Number of IDs in source	unknown
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://www.bbfc.co.uk/$1

Motivation edit

This property would make it much easier to add sources to BBFC rating (P2629).

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games--Trade (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment Should we rather use the “Content ID”? It’s in the source code as <link rel="shortlink" and in various other places. eg Postal (Q700905) → 27831, 264819. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should but i can't really add it myself since i'm on mobile. --Trade (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it'd be a useful property. I'd be willing to support after Jean-Fred's comments are resolved. ~~Should this not be representing British Board of Film Classification (Q861670) rather than Entertainment Software Rating Board (Q191458)?~~ Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jean-Frédéric:, the ID's have stopped working. Any idea what happened?--Trade (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Crap websites… however digging more, turns out the “BBFC reference” can be used as well, will update. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support use of the ID suggested by Jean-Frédéric. However, I'm a bit confused about what the multiple IDs represent (some of them are marked with "PS2 version", "Wii version", etc. while others are for the same title and no obvious difference I can see). --SilentSpike (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are from the "Related work" tab--Trade (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but what differentiates them? I think I might see it now, there's an ID for each release (presumably Manhunt 2 was released in both 2007 and another edition in 2008?). --SilentSpike (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewis Hulbert:, @SilentSpike:--Trade (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dhx1 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support in principle. Just need to iron out the details. Macrike (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updating with the BBFC reference ID. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are not IDs of a work. These are reference numbers to rating decisions. There might be half a dozen or more of these corresponding to a film and its releases. – Máté (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have several identifiers like this?--Trade (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade, Jean-Frédéric, Lewis Hulbert, SilentSpike, Dhx1, Máté:

Done BBFC reference (P8794) Pamputt (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Máté: Interesting. One example is The King's Speech (Q160060) which was reclassified from 15 to 12A per [1]. I think BBFC reference (P8794) works well as a mandatory qualifier to BBFC rating (P2629) instead of rating certificate ID (P2676) which was used previously. It also works as a reference. I've tweaked the property constraints in a way that may make more sense. Can you please review and see what you think? --Dhx1 (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a good idea to use qualifiers in a way that they are not meant to be used+ (as a replacement of references)? Wouldn't that just cause query problems in the future? @Dhx1: --Trade (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: nobody suggested or did that. What query problems are you even talking about? – Máté (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your reply on the talk page until now... Nevermind, i think i just got confused about how you intend for the property to be used. I'm still unsure why you are against using it as a main value. --Trade (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dhx1: I think it works this way. It is worth noting though that since last month new rating decisions no longer feature a BBFC reference. – Máté (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewis Hulbert, SilentSpike: Thoughts? --Trade (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]