Wikidata talk:WikiProject Movies

Active discussions

Please join the discussionEdit

Hey All, I started a conversation about adaptation vs "based on" on P144's talk page please join the discussion, Sadads (talk)


URL to view a movieEdit

I have URL for a film (Q11424) where people can view the movie. What property do I use to store this info in its entity? Do I use official website (P856)? And if so, do I put a qualifier? And what about if it requires to pay?

Regards, Antoine --Antoine2711 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Antoine2711:. We have started discussing the same subject on the french chat room. --2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Did anything ever get resolved for this? At first I thought video (P10) might be the place for this since it mentions film trailers, but it appears that you can only link to things on Wikimedia Commons. Wiki joho (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

date of first performance (P1191) for filmsEdit

I tend to use date of first performance (P1191) to indicate the world premiere of a film (see e.g. Grozny Blues (Q88012667)), as it was suggested by Máté in the discussion Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Archive_1#Premiere_date and as I have seen it on other items. MoveFex is of the opinion that it is wrong (see [1]). So now my question: how to indicate that a certain date is not any release date but the date of the world premiere (first screening) of a film? (Currently publication date (P577) is used for any release in any country (even for screenings on festivals), not only for the first release/screening)

  1. I can use date of first performance (P1191) (this is wrong, according to MovieFex, but still present at 3081 items (query))
  2. I can use publication date (P577) with object has role (P3831) world premiere (Q2500107) (or any other qualifier-value-combination)
  3. I can use significant event (P793) première (Q204854) with point in time (P585) (present in 224 items ([2]))

Related discussions I could find:

If date of first performance (P1191) should not be used on films, should this kind of statement as present in 3081 items be moved to another property? Thanks - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay to use that on films. Unfortunately, I have not been able to convince MovieFex about it. They've been erasing those statements which I find destructive. The only argument is that it's not listed on the project page (which is not binding), but when I listed it they simply removed it. – Máté (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed several times and no consens was found to add date of first performance (P1191) extra to publication date (P577).
In Wikidata there is a wide range for editing and nearly everyone does what he/she wants. In this case we've got a guideline. Why creating a next construction zone? Do you realy want to have a discussion of seperating the release dates e.g. Quantum of Solace (Q181540) or any other films? And are you really, really sure that your sources are correct to be 100% sure that the given first release is really the first release? What is the reason that you are not trying to work in one direction?
@Máté: It was not only me that you were not able to convince about that, you asked for weight in and Jura1 did. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • date of first performance (P1191) is for live events/broadcasts, not films. Initially it was used for tv series (as it may apply to live TV programs), but that was mostly fixed.
publication date (P577) can be qualified with place of publication to indicate something else than a country. (I'm aware that Maté disagrees). --- Jura 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Some related question for films having their world premiere at a festival: If using significant event (P793) première (Q204854) for the date it seems fair to me to use it also to indicate the festival edition and if known the cinema theatre. Which qualifier should I use for the festival edition? presented in (P5072)? To have an example:
significant event
  première
point in time 26 February 2020
presented in 70th Berlin International Film Festival
location Theater at Potsdamer Platz
0 references
add reference


add value
Any opinions about this approach? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I support this solution! (easy for queries like this: Pixar films). Escudero (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I think it's useful if you want to include additional details about the première beyond the date of publication. --- Jura 14:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I would start moving all statements from date of first performance (P1191) to significant event (P793) première (Q204854) with point in time (P585) (also considering location of first performance (P4647)) in two weeks, if no one opposes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I do. This makes no sense either and is again a try to establish a second date like date of first performance (P1191) through the backdoor with a wrong use of significant event (P793). -- MovieFex (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This was accepted in 2017 (Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Properties#Looking_for_right_Properties) and documented at Property_talk:P793. Why do you think it is a "wrong use"? If you don't care about explicitly indicating premiere dates and if you are not interested in it, you don't have to add them. You can also ignore them in queries. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of statements, possible optionsEdit

@Máté, Jura1, MovieFex, Escudero: MovieFex is deleting statements indicating the premiere date via significant event (P793) with reason "no consensus" (see e.g. [3]). I don't care how to indicate the premiere date, but I think this is information that should be specified somehow. publication date (P577) is not sufficient for that, as there is no guarantee for completion, besides others. @MovieFex: If you don't like significant event (P793) and if you won't accept it, what would you propose as an alternative? What are there for possibilities to reach some kind of at least minimal agreement where positions are so entranched? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. MovieFex's behaviour has unfortunately been very destructive. The reason behind the lack of consensus is only MovieFex's unwillingness to compromise on deleting useful premiere data. I don't mind if it's P793 or P1191 either (although the latter is way easier to query), but deleting data shouldn't be an option. – Máté (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Home video releasesEdit

For books Wikidata has the possibility to add data items for works and editions (e.g. Dracula (2011 Penguin ed.) (Q28003029) edition or translation of (P629) Dracula (Q41542)). How should similar situations be handled with movies, especially home video releases? See this example, a collection of short movies: Looney Tunes Platinum Collection: Volume 1 (Q16252668) -- Discostu (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we also indicate all broader genres via P136 if a film belongs to a sub genre?Edit

Hello, Scarface (Q47075) is of the genre gangster film (Q7444356) which is a subgenre of crime film (Q959790) (as already expressed in Wikidata via subclass-of-relationships). If indicating that Scarface (Q47075) is of the genre gangster film (Q7444356), should I also keep crime film (Q959790) or should I replace it? I often replace broader genres, e.g fiction film (Q12912091) with more specific genres, like drama (Q130232) - should I stop replacing and also keep all broader genres, e.g. fiction film (Q12912091) and drama (Q130232)? Thanks, - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is okay to remove properties if a "subclass of"-relationship exists, Help:Basic_membership_properties#subclass_of_(P279) states if A is an instance of class B, and class B is a subclass of class C then there is no need for an additional statement A → C.--CENNOXX (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, I'd say yes. Especially for overly broad genres like fiction film (Q12912091). Though I think there are some very, very niche genres out there (for example in the horror genre) and also some that are only used in one country or language region. Those can easily be modelled as subgenres, but I'm not sure how this might affect reusers of our data. Most external databases and usersr probably use broad categories like drama, comedy, scifi, crime, romance, etc. So users of our data would have to make way more queries to get the desired broad genres. --Kam Solusar (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

producer (P162)Edit

'(for film, this does not include executive producers, associate producers, etc.)' Well, how else am i supposed to add associate producers to a film item? And what about line producer and supervising producer? --Trade (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You can use film crew member (P3092) with a qualifier -- Discostu (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

number of viewers/listeners (P5436)Edit

For number of viewers/listeners (P5436) a determination method (P459) is needed as a qualifier. What determination method (P459) should be added if I want to add the (U.S.) viewers of the first broadcast measured by Nielsen?--CENNOXX (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Portable People Meter (Q2104916) maybe. -- Discostu (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't follow what happened with the property after its creation, but I guess my worries about its usage were right. Seems nobody ever bothered with actually creating items for the different kind of ratings that would be needed to identify what those numbers actually symbolize. For the Nielsen ratings you'd probably have to create items for the kind of viewership numbers that Nielsen publishes (like Live, Live + SD, Live +3, Live +7, etc.) and figure out what ratings the numbers you have specifically represent. Which isn't always easy, since not every source necessarily mentions the specific kind of rating. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

P31 statements for television film seriesEdit

Seems we currently don't have an item for television film series (as in: series of films made for and aired on television). Most such film series are simply tagged as instance of (P31) film series (Q24856) instead, which is not wrong, but TV film series seem to be often treated as kind of a mix of a film series and a TV show. Various TV/film databases also treat them as television series, which leads to constraint violations. So I'm thinking about creating such an item and using it on film series like Murder, She Baked (Q24807155), Tatort (Q689438) or Bruno & Boots (Q52121656). But I'm not sure if there's a clear-cut distinction between series of films produced for TV and TV series with film-length episodes like Sherlock (Q192837). --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't re-invent the wheel. If other databases define Sherlock and Tatort as TV series then we should just do the same. At least if we don't have very good reasons for going our own way. -- Discostu (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, this seems to be more complex than I thought, some of your examples are only listed as individual films in IMDb. But I still think we shouldn't add a new Q item for that. If other databases list it as TV series, we should do the same. If they list it as individual films, we should use film series. If other databases can't agree, we should use both and give a reference for each. -- Discostu (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it reinventing the wheel. Most TV databases just don't seem to be designed to handle such film series made for TV, so they only can either treat them as separate films or as a series. In my experice this decision seems to be often based on how that film series was presented/aired in the country of the database and its audience. Tatort is usually called a "Filmreihe" (film series) and its weekly "episodes" are ususally called films (which they are), not episodes in literature and the media. But some databases, especially foreign ones treat it as a TV series. And The Abominable Bride (Q21931680) is treated as an episodes of Sherlock (Q192837), but also received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Television Movie. Which IMO kinda shows that we shouldn't rely too much on how such databases treat specific cases.
I mean, television film series (or "made-for-tv film series") aren't a new concept that I just invented, there are more then enough mentions in literature and on the web. And I'd say as they are by definition both a film series and television broadcasts, having such an item with the statements instance of (P31) film series (Q24856) and instance of (P31) television program (Q15416), plus maybe has part (P527) television film (Q506240), would make sense IMO. As a subclass of both, it would still be findable via queries. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Using format of creative work (P7937) on filmsEdit

Since there exists an own property for artistic form, now (format of creative work (P7937)), I propose to quit using instance of (P31) to indicate structural and/or technical aspects of a film and instead use this new property, especially with respect to these values (and subclasses):

I would also apply this accordingly to series-related-items (e.g. miniseries (Q1259759)). What do you think? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary I would say no. But I'll think more. --Infovarius (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
These do seem to be the same kinds of things as the examples given for format of creative work (P7937), such as novel (Q8261). The example with Fringe (Q3815) and drama (Q25372) seems odd to me since drama (Q25372) is a subclass of literary work (Q7725634). There's also the challenge of distinguishing genre and form, which exist on a continuum. On Anna Karenina (Q147787), novel (Q8261) is given as both the genre (P136) and the format of creative work (P7937). This seems pretty clearly to belong under format of creative work (P7937), but not all examples are so straightforward. Wiki joho (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree. It is much easier to use just
⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31)   ⟨ novel (Q8261)      ⟩
. --Infovarius (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How to show a series is completed?Edit

What is the prefered way to show, that a series is completed? Is there any series already using something like this?--CENNOXX (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

end time (P582)? --Infovarius (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Original language of silent filmsEdit

I found the recommendation under original language of film or TV show (P364) to use n/a (Q21686005) for silent films confusing. After looking at some examples like The Great Train Robbery (Q470329), it seems that you aren't literally supposed to use n/a (Q21686005), but rather that people are changing the input type and entering n/a that way for dialogue (Q131395). Wouldn't spoken language (Q1322198) be more accurate here? The examples I saw also give the original language of the intertitles, but for some reason don't qualify by intertitle (Q245069). Why wouldn't you want to specify that? Wiki joho (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Movies".