Property talk:P3818

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

KMRB film rating
rating of a film in the South Korean film/video rating system
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Type “film (Q11424): item must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “film (Q11424)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (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/P3818#Type Q11424, SPARQL
One of All (Q28951019), 12 (Q28951020), 15 (Q28951021), Adults only (Q28951022), Restricted (Q28951023): value must be one of the specified items. Please expand list if needed. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3818#One of, values statistics, hourly updated report, search, SPARQL
Required qualifier “rating certificate ID (P2676): this property should be used with the listed qualifier. (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/P3818#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3818#Scope, hourly updated report, SPARQL
Citation needed: the property must have at least one reference (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/P3818#citation needed

Discussion

[edit]

Continued from talk:P3428

[edit]

'[Before 2006, video games released in South Korea were rated by KMRB.]' Roughly [1] 100 of those are listed on MobyGames. Should we change it? @Máté:--Trade (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: That should be suggested on the talk page of that property. Currently there are editors who use it way more than I do. But I think a separate property would be a better solution. – Máté (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be a better solution than simply changing the scope of this property? @Máté:--Trade (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian140:--Trade (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]