Wikidata:Property proposal/MovieLens ID

MovieLens ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done
DescriptionID of a movie in MovieLens
RepresentsMovieLens (Q4353746)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1The Godfather (Q47703)858
Example 2One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Q171669)1193
Example 3Dr. Strangelove (Q105702)750
Example 4Toy Story (Q171048)1
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd][en.wikt][fr.wikt].
Number of IDs in source58098 from dump
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttps://movielens.org/movies/$1
Robot and gadget jobsCan be imported from the dataset, which also includes IMDb ID (P345) and TMDB movie ID (P4947)

Motivation edit

MovieLens is a widely researched dataset.GZWDer (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  WikiProject Movies has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Same for me, and by the screenshoot on the main page (section "rich data"), I assumed login is required to browse data. And its Wikipedia article says that it "recommends movies for its users to watch, based on their film preferences using collaborative filtering of members' movie ratings and movie reviews" .Esteban16 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's not obvious how it will be helpful for Wikimedia editors/readers which may not have a wish to waste time on creating account in a highly specialized site. --Wolverène (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That leans me to   Oppose this proposal. Despite the useful data it may contain, to be required to have an account makes it unpleasant. Esteban16 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment I thought it is not unheard of to have IDs linking to website requiring account ; however I could only find a couple − filed them under Wikidata property for an identifier with restricted access (Q65096064). Jean-Fred (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you explain your position. I'm not really oppose the proposal but it's definitely not the obvious case. --Wolverène (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]