Property talk:P1933

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

MobyGames game ID (former scheme)
identifier for MobyGames (this property is deprecated, use P11688 instead; PLEASE NOTE: identifiers (except numeric ones) of this property should be preserved, not removed! For more info see https://w.wiki/6cGk)
Associated itemMobyGames (Q612975)
Applicable "stated in" valueMobyGames (Q612975)
Data typeExternal identifier
Corresponding templateTemplate:MobyGames (Q9640156)
Template parameter|id= in en:Template:MobyGames
Domainvideo game (Q7889), video game compilation (Q16070115), game creation system (Q5519929) or group of video games often treated as a singular game (Q116779426)
Allowed values[a-z0-9_-]+|
ExampleBorderlands 2 (Q893422) → borderlands-2
Rappelz (Q19419) → rappelz
Sourcehttps://www.mobygames.com/game
Formatter URLhttps://www.mobygames.com/game/$1
Tracking: differencesCategory:P1933 different on Wikidata (Q46387076)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P1933 (Q55283023)
Tracking: local yes, WD noCategory:P1933 absent from Wikidata (Q43381878)
See alsoMobyGames person ID (P3913), MobyGames company ID (former scheme) (P4773), MobyGames group ID (former scheme) (P5360), MobyGames platform ID (P5868), MobyGames genre ID (P7326), MobyGames game ID (P11688)
Lists
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Total35,706
Main statement35,309 out of 250,422 (14% complete)98.9% of uses
Qualifier3<0.1% of uses
Reference3941.1% of uses
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Distinct values: this property likely contains a value that is different from all other items. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
Single best value: this property generally contains a single value. If there are several, one would have preferred rank (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#single best value, SPARQL
Format “[a-z0-9_-]+|”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Format, hourly updated report, SPARQL
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
Item “instance of (P31)”: Items with this property should also have “instance of (P31)”. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Item P31, hourly updated report, search, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Entity types
Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as reference (Q54828450): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Scope, SPARQL
Item “MobyGames game ID (P11688)”: Items with this property should also have “MobyGames game ID (P11688)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1933#Item P11688, search, SPARQL
Pattern ^/([a-z0-9_\-]+)$ will be automatically replaced to \1.
Testing: TODO list
Pattern ^/?([a-z0-9_\-]+)/$ will be automatically replaced to \1.
Testing: TODO list
Pattern ^/?game/([a-z0-9_\-]+)/?$ will be automatically replaced to \1.
Testing: TODO list
Pattern ^/?[a-z0-9_\-]+?\/([a-z-_0-9]+?)$ will be automatically replaced to \1.
Testing: TODO list
Pattern ^([1-9]\d*)$ will be automatically replaced to \1 and moved to MobyGames game ID (P11688) property.
Testing: TODO list
Wikidata properties related to game (Q11410) and video game (Q7889)
All games
Traditional games
Video games
Video game series/franchises
Video game hardware
Video game mods
Video game genres
Wikis

Normalisation & autofix

[edit]

I’m adding an autofix to normalize the slug without the platform prefix − replacing for example dos/bioforge with bioforge.

The reason for this is that the platform prefix is not part of the identifier. MobyGames data model operates at the work level, not the platform-realization level. They do have platform-level information (as releases) but that’s a second-level concept. URL-wise, prefixing with the platform is a UI trick that will switch around the information displayed (eg different publishers or credits). But the prefix can actually be set to anything, meaning potatoes/bioforge will resolve.

And somewhat worse: in the case of BioForge (Q864309), it was published on DOS and Windows, which would map (respectively) to dos/bioforge and windows/bioforge. However, a URL of wii/bioforge will resolve, even though that game was never published on that platform.

With only 446 instances out of a total usage of 15K (3%), the current practice is clearly to use the canonical ID, so that seems non-controversial :)

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: Totally agree with you, this ID property should contain only a one single value without platform prefix. I think, the platform should be removed also from the qualifiers constraint. Kirilloparma (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: Thanks for the answer! Looks like the autofix did the trick and all the old-style usage was replaced (eg Special:Diff/974801312).
I have now changed the formatting-related bits (properties & constraints) accordingly.
Regarding the single-value constraint: I agree as well. There is the case of the special/limited-editions, where MobyGames will typically issue another ID − for example Dark Souls (Q1166232) has two entries on MobyGames, dark-souls and dark-souls-limited-edition. In that case, I think it’s fine to have several values (with maybe version type (P548) as qualifier) − see eg Q1166232#P1933. But agree that platform is not an okay separator-qualifier, will remove as well.
Jean-Fred (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for normalisation of this property and the new qualifier, that seems very helpful :). Kirilloparma (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P400 as a valid separator for single-value constraint

[edit]

Making a new section to clarify the scope of the discussion − based on my undestanding, please let me know if I got it wrong :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Platform must be an okay separator-qualifier. Sometimes Mobygames makes separate entries for different platforms, while the rest of the world consider them the same game. I mean the unique identifier, not the prefix. --Bultro (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an example helps: this is a multiplatform game on en.wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_(video_game)
platform versions have some differences, and on Mobygames they consider it as four separate entries
https://www.mobygames.com/game/total-recall
https://www.mobygames.com/game/total-recall_
https://www.mobygames.com/game/total-recall__
https://www.mobygames.com/game/total-recall___
Thare are a lot of cases like this. Mobygames is not an authority, it's just run by volunteers like a Wiki, and they make arbitrary decisions about splitting by platform or not. We just can't consider this a single value property by platform (unless you want to randomly choose one of those IDs in Q60738895 and give incomplete information) --Bultro (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bultro: Example that you provided isn't good at all, because it's only one example of other thousand elements that don't have the underscore symbol ___. For example, BioForge (Q864309) has no underscore symbol at all ([1], [2]), same for Red Dead Redemption (Q548203) (see [3], [4]), so we are always there (same problem mentioned before), going to the preferences is not our intention, so in any case, platform prefix (P400) must no longer be included to the qualifiers allowed for MobyGames ID. Regards. Kirilloparma (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: I think Bultro’s concerns are not so much about the normalisation (removing the gba/foo for foo), and more about the fact that platform (P400) should be an acceptable separator (P4155) for not triggering the single-value constraint (Q19474404) − for example Q18940#P1933. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bultro: That’s a fair concern, thanks for raising it :-)
My own experience has been quite the opposite: I find that Wikipedias have a clear tendency of covering several different games under one article because they share the same name. This is particularly prevalent with tie-in games to movie franchises. Here is an example I unraveled last week: en:Over the Hedge: Hammy Goes Nuts! covers a Game Boy Advance miniature golf game, a Nintendo DS action adventure game, and a PSP platform game. These games really have little in common and should be separate items, so I converted Over the Hedge: Hammy Goes Nuts! (Q7113487) to be a Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) and created three actual Q7889 items.
Now, there might be cases where MobyGames gets it wrong, or too granular for our purposes ; but my experience so far is that MobyGames is more often right in separating actually different games, than they are at separating virtually identical ones − and definitely better than Wikipedia articles.
(Note that I don’t mean that as a criticism − Wikipedia articles are meant to be synthetic and it often makes sense to cover, say, handheld tie-ins to en:Tomb Raider: Legend in one article − in the same way it can make sense to cover 4 light-novels, 3 video game and 2 manga series, anime and OAVs in one article, a situation which we need to unravel on Wikidata.)
Regarding the constraint: the occasional false-positives can be white-listed with exception to constraint (P2303). Would that alleviate your concerns?
Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. Over the Hedge is an extreme situation and en.wiki's choice to consider it one video game is very questionable in that case. But I'm afraid that uncertain situations are not rare. If Wikidata had decided since the start to make a separate item for every platform it would make more sense, but following Mobygame's mood isn't much better than following other Wikimedia projects.
Every time you transform a videogame item into a Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) item, Wikipedias lose all the data they were reading from Wikidata. Are you going to do it with Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare (Q2337936) too, just because Mobygames decided to split one version?
Sure there is the exception to constraint (P2303) option, but then again we could argue if Mobygames is "right" or not. And it gets complex for users that don't know this issue. Just allowing P400 as a qualifier, like we did for years, seems the more harmless thing to do.
(in any case, just deleting IDs is not the right thing to do, is it??) --Bultro (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that turning items into Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) is a bit extreme and not always the right thing to do − for example, when I splitted off Tomb Raider: Legend (Q62396187) and Tomb Raider: Legend (Q62396186) from Tomb Raider: Legend (Q665785), I left Tomb Raider: Legend (Q665785) as the Q7889 for the 'main' game − because I think it’s more or less clear that it is mostly what the WP articles are talking about. I think it really becomes weird when in the future we start adding statements for indicating the visual style (side-scrolling 2D, isometric 3D, first-person, etc.)
I also agree that Over the Hedge is a bit of an extreme example − but I find milder versions all the time: for example, I just looked up Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and it also covers a GBA/Ngage game and a mobile phone game, while I think it is clear that there are 3 very different games − which MobyGames gets it right ([5] & [6]). For Alone in the Dark though, I agree that the difference (if any) does feel a bit thin to me.
Wikipedia articles 'merge' these games _just/mostly because_ they have the same name: for me, that would be the same as having one item for Donkey Kong Land (Q2718657) and Donkey Kong Country (Q518987) (which could easily have been called with the same name) or for Metal Gear Solid (Q6582527) and Metal Gear Solid (Q2600361) (which is actually called MGS in some territories): it’s just not the same game. I’m not saying MobyGames is the gospel, just that I think they are more often right than wrong, often enough to warrant the current constraint setup (with the occasional exception handled with exception to constraint (P2303)). But I’m ready to be convinced otherwise though :-)
(Re: one item per platform: that’s sort of a separate discussion but I really think we will need to do that at some point and have different platform-realization-sub-items to a main 'game', if only to have a sane way to indicate release-dates and distribution formats. It’s not for now though ; I do need to put together a proposal for everyone to discuss. If you are interested I gathered some of thoughts at User:Jean-Frédéric/Videogames data model.)
Re: Wikipedias losing all the data they were reading from Wikidata: That is a very good point that I will readily admit, kind of overlooked. While I know that some WP do, I was always under the assumption that it was not many of them, but I’m mostly biaised with the languages I can read (En, Fr, Es, De) or sort-of-parse (It, Nl) − I actually don’t really know which WPs actively use data from Wikidata on games. I still think it should not be a blocker for splitting things, because WP infoboxes (for example) 'just' need to be made a bit smarter in their Lua to fetch data from linked items. I agree though that they should be kept in the loop of these kind of decisions.
Jean-Fred (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrokenSegue: − this was the reasoning so far for not allowing platform (P400) as valid separator. Jean-Fred (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see... this seems at odds with the treatment for Metacritic ID (P1712) BrokenSegue (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some video game databases, like Metacritic (and GameFAQs, UVL etc.) have a data-model with one ID per platform-realization − even if it’s “the same game” − so it’s expected to have more than one ID per item. However Mobygames has one ID per game − which is 'the same' (with caveats) to our own modelling here on Wikidata.
Where it becomes a bit fuzzy, is that it’s not always clear how different two products need to be (whether they have the same name or not) to be considered the same game, covered under the same item. Mobygames gets it right (in my opinion) most of the time ; but there’s also cases (as argued by Bultro above) where they’re really splitting hairs − and entries − based on very minor differences − a split we may not want to blindly follow either.
Jean-Fred (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly, the newer MobyGames game ID does not have this constraint. Why keep this hindrance in the old id, that represents exactly the same pages? Especially, I can't see the point in removing qualifiers without substitutes, leaving there an error and no explanation. Kirilloparma's obstinacy just forces me not to read from Wikidata and do things manually on Wikipedia. --95.233.202.18 08:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Rightly, the newer MobyGames game ID does not have this constraint
It has.
> Why keep this hindrance in the old id, that represents exactly the same pages?
It doesn't represents exactly the same pages because MobyGames game ID (P11688) and MobyGames game ID (former scheme) (P1933) are not the same thing. P1933 is a property of the former scheme, which has identifiers in the form of URL slugs, and the other has numeric ones (new format), so it is a property of a completely different format. MobyGames' human-readable IDs are now unstable and have turned into redirects that are slowly and gradually dying. Numeric identifiers have a clear priority mainly because they are stable and new entries in the database no longer use URL slugs (as of 20.02.2023, i.e. starting approximately from this ID).
By the way, in September 2023, the same thing happened to Metacritic. They decided to get rid of the platform prefix and, as it turned out later, switched to numeric identifiers (as an alternative). On Wikidata it was decided to create a separate property for games to avoid using the Metacritic ID (P1712) property, which has a wide range of uses. P1712, which is now deprecated, is still used for movies, TV series and music, but no longer for video games. Additionally, a property for numeric IDs was created (used as a qualifier for the main one).
For more information, see.
> Especially, I can't see the point in removing qualifiers without substitutes, leaving there an error and no explanation.
No explanation? You cited the diff in which I said how MobyGames identifiers should be handled. Some specific examples? Here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
> Kirilloparma's obstinacy just forces me not to read from Wikidata and do things manually on Wikipedia.
And in turn, your obstinacy in pushing P400 qualifier even when it has been explained several times how to handle MobyGames IDs makes me wonder why you keep doing it. Please note that you are on Wikidata and our modeling may not necessarily match the way it is done on Wikipedia and that's perfectly fine. Wikidata is an independent and autonomous project, with its own rules, different from the rules of the language sections of Wikipedia. Just as Wikipedia does not have to follow our practices. Here you can specify age ratings for a particular game, which is something you can't do for example on en.wiki. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey but in Property:P1933#P2302 there's already "allowed qualifiers constraint" = "platform". It was fixed at some point. So user:Kirilloparma what are you talking about?--Bultro (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bultro: This qualifier is being added back from time to time by different participants unaware of this discussion (Special:Diff/982124660, Special:Diff/1302725110, Special:Diff/1298643109), which happened this time as well, but that's fine, I guess. The issue here is not even allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851), but single-best-value constraint (Q52060874). This property should not use two or more values (best one should be used instead). Only version type (P548) is allowed as a separator if there are video game editions (example). It is also possible to split items by platform, taking Batman Returns (Q123050113), Batman Returns (Q113494450), Batman Returns (Q50385786), Batman Returns (Q2891551), Batman Returns (Q21540307) and Batman Returns (Q62019198) as an example.
In brief: there should be only one MobyGames ID and if there are any editions, then P548 qualifier is used, if there are multiple values, the preferred rank is set for the main one. Do you still not understand this from the 2019 discussion? Please re-read discussion on issue raised, it is explained here why P400 qualifier should not be in the statements. See also this clarification from Jean-Frédéric. Also please avoid using dozens of IPs to discuss and undo edits, it looks odd and quite suspicious... Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding version type (P548) as qualifier

[edit]

Following up on the previous section: I made a QuickStatements batch, #16620 (EditGroup), to add the version type (P548) when the Mobygames ID matched a certain regex − here was the SPARQL: 

SELECT ?item ?value ?versionLabel WHERE
{
  ?item p:P1933 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P1933 ?value .
  
  FILTER( REGEX(REPLACE(STR(?value), "%20", " "), "^.*?(:?limited|special|collectors)-edition$") )
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P548 ?version}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!

My mapping was:

(Although I’m not sure how precise these terms are − they feel very interchangeable to me… And there’s even limited-collectors-edition ;-D)

And then there’s going to be a long tail of random names, titanium-edition, survival-edition that I guess will have to be processed manually…

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also did #16622 (EditGroup) ; maybe I was a bit heavy handed though: Midway Arcade Treasures Deluxe Edition (Q16258862) does not seem to be a paricular edition, just an annoyingly named game >_> Jean-Fred (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: #16930 (EditGroup). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imports

[edit]

I had imported in the past a bunch of IDs from Wikipedias, using HarvestTemplates − see the editgroups list. It looks like I had forgotten some:

  • Japanese-language Wikipedia − now done via #cd7f9ec0e9b0 (EditGroup) & #37cc870c3cd5 (EditGroup)
  • German-language Wikipedia − now done via #d356b4684279 (EditGroup)

Jean-Fred (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P1933&oldid=2088419928"