Wikidata:Property proposal/BBFC ID

BBFC ID

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

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

applsdev Arlo Barnes BugWarp Coloradohusky CptViraj Cupkake4Yoshi Cwf97 Cynde Moya Danrok Datumizer Dexxor Diggr Dispenser Dollarsign8 DoublePendulumAttractor EdoAug Edolusill Eniehack Facenapalm Floyd-out FullyAwesome Harshrathod50 Jean-Frédéric Keplersj Kirilloparma Lewis Hulbert LotsofTheories Macocobovi Macrike Master Of Ninja Matthias M. Metafire18 Nicereddy Nw520 Oduci Poslovitch Rampagingcarrot RampantSpirit Santer Sight Contamination thgiex Tomodachi94 VGPaleontologist Wd-Ryan WikiSyn YotaMoteuchi

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

Discussion

•  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)

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

•  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)

  @Jean-Frédéric:, the ID's have stopped working. Any idea what happened?--Trade (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  <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)

•  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)

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

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)

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

•  Support --Dhx1 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Support in principle. Just need to iron out the details. Macrike (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Updating with the BBFC reference ID. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
•  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)

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

@Trade, Jean-Frédéric, Lewis Hulbert, SilentSpike, Dhx1, Máté:  Done BBFC reference (P8794) Pamputt (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

•  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)

  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)

  Once again: nobody suggested or did that. What query problems are you even talking about? – Máté (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  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)

  • @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)

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