Wikidata:Property proposal/Imprint
Imprint edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Not done
| Description | trade name under which works are published |
|---|---|
| Represents | imprint (Q2608849) |
| Data type | Item |
| Template parameter | "imprint" in en:template:Infobox animanga/Print |
| Domain | books, book series |
| Example | One Piece (Q26971229) → Jump Comics (Q11310204) |
- Motivation
I would like to match manga series to the imprint under which they are published. Shikeishu (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Oppose, use the publisher property. Publishers who are also imprints should also be instance of (P31) imprint (Q2608849). --Izno (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- True. It just gets quite chaotic. E.g. adding Jump Comics (Q11310204) to Naruto (Q26971382) as a publisher would basically mean adding exactly the same qualifiers as to its linkage to Shueisha (Q844822), while a new property imprint could just be added as a qualifier to the edition. --Shikeishu (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- If it was published under both names--perhaps I'm not quite understanding the situation--then they should both be listed as publishers. Neither is a re-publisher, correct? --Izno (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- A book from the series is published by the publisher Shueisha (Q844822) in the publisher's imprint Jump Comics (Q11310204), so it's published under both names. The latter is not a publisher per se, it's an imprint that the publisher uses e.g. to target a specific audience. --Shikeishu (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then they're still both publishers of the work. I see no reason to add a separate property for this case and per my original statement I believe "p31 imprint" on the publisher of interest is enough. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- A book from the series is published by the publisher Shueisha (Q844822) in the publisher's imprint Jump Comics (Q11310204), so it's published under both names. The latter is not a publisher per se, it's an imprint that the publisher uses e.g. to target a specific audience. --Shikeishu (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- If it was published under both names--perhaps I'm not quite understanding the situation--then they should both be listed as publishers. Neither is a re-publisher, correct? --Izno (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- True. It just gets quite chaotic. E.g. adding Jump Comics (Q11310204) to Naruto (Q26971382) as a publisher would basically mean adding exactly the same qualifiers as to its linkage to Shueisha (Q844822), while a new property imprint could just be added as a qualifier to the edition. --Shikeishu (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Support. This is indeed vey basic data. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Izno. For your query I think you could just search for publishers which are an instance of imprint. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I am glad people are thinking about these types of things but this is just wrong. It is not uncommon for an imprint to change its name in some small way and/or change hands and it is not unheard of for one to convert from an actual publisher and back. I agree we should leave imprints as publishers and just make the target item entities identify what sort of if items they are (imprints and/or publisher, etc. potentially with time based qualifiers, etc.) Uzume (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)- @Shikeishu, Izno, Thierry Caro, Uzume: closing this as
Not done - it has been 2 months since the last comment, and the general sense appears to be that publisher (P123) suffices. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
