Property talk:P6160
Documentation
identifier for a publisher on the BoardGameGeek website
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Type Q2085381, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6160#Scope, SPARQL
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Not every publisher on BoardGameGeek is a board game publishing company
[edit]I noticed that someone had been adding the claim "board game publishing company OF table top role-playing game" to various publishers who are represented on Board Game Geek but are not board game publishing companies. At first I couldn't figure out why they were adding untrue statements but traced it to this property's constraints. This constraint is a fundamental misunderstanding of board game geek's publisher coverage. While board game publishing companies may also publish role-playing games, plenty of role-playing game companies publish only tabletop role-playing games and are still listed there because BGG not only has data for board games but for wargames, role-playing games, etc. (edited to add: For example, Games Workshop, makers of the Warhammer 40,000 game is their publisher ID number 26, which clearly indicates that they have long included other-than-board-game companies.)
I would recommend that either (1) this property loosen the constraint to all publishers or (2) that the entity "role-playing game publisher" be created as a subclass of publisher and included below. The first would be simpler. People's eagerness to include this property on everyone represented in BGG is leading to false statements. Let's get it straightened out! Ruthbrarian (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A further note upon reflection the next morning: of the two options I proposed last night, I think the "all" publishers one is the better choice, since role-playing game publisher would still not cover someone like Games Workshop, or someone who publishes only card games, and this would lead to a diffusion of niche publisher types. So my recommendation is to loosen the constraint to publisher in recognition of the fact that "BoardGameGeek" is not a truth claim that all publishers/games listed there are board games. It's simply a website name and many kinds of game publisher may be included. Ruthbrarian (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
-- I would like to support option (2), the creation of entity "tabletop role-playing game publisher" (I added "tabletop" to make a difference with computer RPG, MMORPG, etc.).Pmartinolli (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC).
-- Here to support option (1). Loosening the constraint seems like the better alternative. Scottythered (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC).
- All Properties
- Properties with external-id-datatype
- Properties used on 100+ items
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with unique value constraints
- Properties with format constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Games properties