Wikidata:Property proposal/board game designer
game designer
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Description | person(s) who devised and developed this game |
---|---|
Represents | game designer (Q3630699) |
Data type | Item |
Template parameter |
|
Domain | game (Q11410) |
Allowed values | instances of human (Q5) or group of humans (Q16334295) |
Example 1 | Codenames (Q25203543) → Vlaada Chvátil (Q1791461) |
Example 2 | The Settlers of Catan (Q17271) → Klaus Teuber (Q61088) |
Example 3 | Dune (Q389078) → Peter Olotka (Q19662251), Jack Kittredge (Q65936417), Bill Eberle (Q65673817) |
Example 4 | Portal (Q274897) → Kim Swift (Q6409464) |
Example 5 | Super Mario Bros. (Q11168) → Shigeru Miyamoto (Q12382), Takashi Tezuka (Q509121) |
Planned use | Replace uses of creator (P170), designed by (P287), developer (P178), author (P50), and discoverer or inventor (P61) with the new property |
Motivation
[edit]Edit: Based on the feedback I have expanded the scope to video games as well. I was hesitant to do this at first because designed by (P287) is already well-established for video games: en:Template:Infobox video game and 2007 video games use it.
5 years have passed since the Property for board and card game creators discussion and we still haven't agreed on how to model relationships between board games and its designers. Currently, there are five competing properties in use – what a mess.
Why I think the existing properties are not sufficient:
- developer (P178) is mostly used for video games. Its values are often companies but board game designers aren't.
- author (P50) should only be used for written works (I assume this one has so many uses because board game designers are called Autoren in German)
- designed by (P287) could be mistaken for graphic designer/illustrator (P110) (especially by German users).
- creator (P170) and discoverer or inventor (P61) are too generic. Labels in other languages are often awkward.
But most importantly: it's not obvious to editors which of the above properties they should choose, resulting in the mess we are in. Dexxor (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Notified participants of WikiProject Board Games
- Wouldn't it be more practical to turn this into a broader property – "game designer" – that could be used with board games, video games, and maybe even physical games, if there are such cases? I think most of the problems listed above also apply to video games. Currently, designed by (P287) is sometimes used for both the "game scenario ideas" position and the "visuals/illustrations" position. While the examples in this property include Jony Ive with iPhones and a furniture designer - which, to be honest, seems to have nothing to do with game design. And the only other way to fill this position is developer (P178) + video game designer (Q18882335) qualifier. The game designer profession itself seems to be pretty well established to be independently recognized and weighted. Pinging the VG project to see what others think: Notified participants of WikiProject Video games. Solidest (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Either this property should be expanded to a general "game designer", or the game artist (P3080) property can be used for board game art. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm leaning towards the above option "game designer" instead of the specific one proposed. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting the expanded version. Solidest (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like the wider game designer, that should cover most use cases. Ainali (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Dexxor, Kirilloparma, Solidest, Wd-Ryan, Ainali: Done: game designer (P12969). --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Lewis Hulbert: Thanks for creating it, however when you open it, it sticks and just won't open. So far it can only be opened by browsing some diff, am I the only one experiencing this? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kirilloparma, I'm also getting same issue, please see Wikidata:DEV#Issues with adding statements to a new property. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like some kind of bug. My advice for now is to create a ticket in phabricator and temporarily avoid creating properties via the Wikidata interface. I suggest to try using PropertyCreator.js or as I do on a regular basis create properties via QuickStatements (example). I don't know how it would help though, but it's worth a try. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I tried QuickStatements earlier in the same situation, unfortunately doesn't work well! However, your suggestion is very good, It's looks like Antonin's createprop which was not working for long time. Thanks! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like some kind of bug. My advice for now is to create a ticket in phabricator and temporarily avoid creating properties via the Wikidata interface. I suggest to try using PropertyCreator.js or as I do on a regular basis create properties via QuickStatements (example). I don't know how it would help though, but it's worth a try. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kirilloparma, I'm also getting same issue, please see Wikidata:DEV#Issues with adding statements to a new property. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Lewis Hulbert: Thanks for creating it, however when you open it, it sticks and just won't open. So far it can only be opened by browsing some diff, am I the only one experiencing this? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)