Property talk:P400

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

platform
platform for which a work was developed or released, or the specific platform version of a software product
Descriptioncomputing platform on which a software runs, e.g. PC, ARM, Xbox
Representscomputing platform (Q241317)
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:template:Infobox software: platform. en:template:Infobox video game: platforms
Domain
According to statements in the property:
computer program (Q40056), software (Q7397) and game franchise (Q28114058)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuescomputing platform (Q241317), or possibly simply operating system (Q9135)Be (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
ExampleMinecraft (Q49740)Xbox 360 (Q48263)
Grand Theft Auto IV (Q94797)PlayStation 3 (Q10683)
Counter-Strike (Q163628)Xbox (Q132020)
Robot and gadget jobsDeltaBot does the following jobs:
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P400 (Q20989976)
Lists
  • Count of items by number of statements (chart)
  • Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart)
  • Items with the most identifier properties
  • Items with no other statements
  • Items with novalue claims
  • Items with unknown value claims
  • Usage history
  • Database reports/Constraint violations/P400
  • Proposal discussionProperty proposal/Archive/5#P400
    Current uses29,718
    [create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
    Type “computer program (Q40056), software (Q7397), game franchise (Q28114058): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “computer program (Q40056), software (Q7397), game franchise (Q28114058)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P400#Type Q40056, Q7397, Q28114058, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
    Value type “computing platform (Q241317): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value computing platform (Q241317) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P400#Value type Q241317, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)


    This property is being used by:

    Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

    Remove the operating systems for the accepted values[edit]

    I would like to suggest updating this constraint to not accept the operating systems as platforms. If we want to specify the operating system in which the software works we have operating system (P306) which can be used, as a property of the element or as a qualifier for the platform. -- Agabi10 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

    @Agabi10: I don't quite get why we actually have two properties. I used stuffs like "JVM" for platform, it's neither an OS nor some harware computers. The separation beetween OS and platform seems quite cumbersome to me. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @TomT0m: It happens the same to me, that's the main reason of why I want to remove the operating systems. In this case operating systems have their own property, so I think it is better to use it instead of the platform property. In the case of the JVM I don't know how I would put that... I would use platform more as a hardware related property, but JVM is only software. The problem is that JVM is not an OS, so it can't be put like that neither. Anyway I think that we need to define this property in a more accurate way, because as it is right now this property is too messed up and too confusing. You only have to take a look to the value statistics for the constraint report of that constraint... Even online and offline (Q10928179) has been in some moment considered a platform by someone (with 14 uses at the moment), what, at least for me, is a signal that the way this property should be used is not clear enough. And we have to start with some place. Removing the operating systems from the list and changing the descriptions to specify that operating system (P306) should be used instead of this property for operating systems is a good first step. -- Agabi10 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      @Agabi10: I don't think that's the right way to to this. We should open a discussion about all this on the WikiProject Informatics and ask ourselves what we want to model : games, software, the hardware platforms (is that relevant ?) ..., if we lack properties to be precise and so on. Then we will be able to come back to the properties and decide what the constraints should be. I'll start a discussion there. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

    Value x86-16 (16-bit) not exist in Platform > Architecture[edit]

    This item not exist!
    Intel 80386 exist - but it is processors (hardware) architecture - not software. I need this value in Q80201 item, and it should be added also for historical reasons. --Jasc PL (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

    Add more obscure gaming platforms[edit]

    Will add more, but this is a start:

    Sega Computer Video Game SG-1000, there should be about 100 games for this platform (eg Girl's Garden)

    --Maxxisti (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

    Use as qualifier[edit]

    Is it correct to use this property as a qualifier for other properties? For example: "instance of videogame" property: release date qualifier: platform

    --93.41.235.15 21:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

    Yes, it is explicitly listed as an acceptable constraint for publication dates. I believe this is currently the proper way to differentiate between different releases for different platforms Rampagingcarrot (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

    Non-ordered video game collections[edit]

    The only group of video games accepted as a type constraint is game franchise, which currently is a subclass of series of creative works. However, 1) I don't think all game franchises are necessarily ordered (which series are), and 2) There are certainly collections of video games that are neither themed like game franchises nor ordered. I think the solution to this is to allow any group of video games to have a platform, but I am not sure how to specify this. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

    It seems like one approach would be to create an item called "group of video games" and either have that be a constraint or have game franchise be a subclass of it. However I am new here and I don't know if this is warranted given that the there is only one item that this currently applies to (Gold Series). So for now I will let the platform of Gold Series break constraints.Rampagingcarrot (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

    Including instruction set architectures[edit]

    Pages for operating systems themselves currently all have violations from using this property with instruction set architectures, such as x86. I propose to allow this usage for operating systems. ARR8 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

    Why is "game franchise" listed in the type constraints?[edit]

    It doesn't seem like game franchise (Q28114058) should be included in the property constraint (P2302) for this property the way it is: while there are some game franchises in which every game happens to run on the same platform(s), this is rarely set in stone — next month, the franchise might get a game (or ports of just some games) on a different platform, and the property would no longer make any sense for that franchise. --SamB (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)