Wikidata talk:WikiProject Movies/Properties

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TODO / points to add[edit]

  • lost films: where to add ✓ Done
  • section for filmography/list of films ✓ Done
  • b/w films ✓ Done
  • section for cinema of ..
  • section for film festivals
  • clarify P31 value for episode items
  • identify missing properties on infobox mapping

Properties[edit]

✓ Done - Music by[edit]

Refering to Q16997214.

How should Music by: John Dragonetti be added? (t) Josve05a (c) 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this property proposal we can use Property:P86 --ValterVB (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ValterVB. Can you please add this to the page? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Cinematography[edit]

Refering to Q16997214.

How should Cinematography: Brian Knappenberger, Scott Sinkler, Lincoln Else be added? (t) Josve05a (c) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to en.wiki cinematographer and director of photography are synonyms, so we can use Property:P344 (but english isn't my first language so I may be wrong) --ValterVB (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ValterVB. This seems to be the same. Can you please add this to the page? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Edited by[edit]

Refering to Q16997214.

How should Edited by: Jason Decker, Brian Knappenberger, Andy Robertson, Bryan Storkel, Michelle M. Witte be added? (t) Josve05a (c) 16:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best choice is Property:P1040 --ValterVB (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ValterVB. Can you please add this to the page? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - Running time[edit]

Refering to Q16997214.

How should Running time: 120 minutes be added? (t) Josve05a (c) 16:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must do some experiment with Data/time property to check is is possible to use time value. --ValterVB (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We must wait quantity with unit datatype. --ValterVB (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - Original name[edit]

How should original names be added. Like if e.g. X would been produced in Sweden under the name Y, and in the US it is called only X, how should the original name be added? Only as an "Also known as", or is there a property for this/can one be created? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday August 19th will be added the new datatype monolingual text, so we can create a new property for original name--ValterVB (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can use Title (Property:P357) for original name - also see: Wikidata:List of properties/Works. --FRacco (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it is title (P1476) now. Infovarius (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

accredited[edit]

New property request: accredited --ValterVB (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

distributor[edit]

What about Property:P750? Not widely used, but seems unproblematic to me. --Jklamo (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Direction by[edit]

Refering to Q8024145.

How should Art Direction by: Q19816341 be added? (t) Josve05a (c) 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is necessary to create a new property. You can propose it here --ValterVB (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical specifications[edit]

Maybe can be useful to create a property for technical specifications? In this property we can add Color/Black white, Live action/Animation, Sound film/Silent film, Aspect ratio etc. Probably need some qualifiers. --ValterVB (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Other properties do not fit for this classification. --Infovarius (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing one "technical specifications" property for everything, which is then disambiguated with qualifiers? I'm having trouble parsing this. This seems like it should be a whole class of properties, each which would need to be able to use their own qualifiers. Aspect ratio alone would need to use a few qualifiers to distinguish capture format from output format (e.g. anamorphic processes). Dancter (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe several properties. But another alternative is to use instance of (P31) with different subclasses. What about that? --Infovarius (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thinked a bit how to group this properties, but I haven't idea. instance of (P31) I don't like because we can't add specific constraints. I try to ping the Project chat. --ValterVB (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ValterVB: : instance of (P31) can, and it is an important use, of course be used to define specific constraints, often class definitions are of the from all instances of silent movies have a sonorisation property with the value no value Help, for example. TomT0m (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how color/B&W is modeled, but I was assuming that instance of (P31) was already established to indicate live action (Q517386)/animated film (Q202866) and sound film (Q848512)/silent film (Q226730). I definitely think there should be an aspect ratio property, though, as well as a resolution property. Are there ways to indicate the specific equipment and formats being used (capture/recording as well as distribution/presentation)? How are multiple cuts/editions being handled? Dancter (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think is too complicated to use because we must to create a lot of specific item, if there is an "animated short movie B/W and mute", I must to create an item for this, using multiple values is not convenient for problem with constraints --ValterVB (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ValterVB: Which problems with constraints ? Anyway there should not be that much item ... We we still have to create the items for the specific properties, and I don't think there will be a lot of significant classes, a lot of combination will not occur, like silent movie in 16/9 for example, or silent movie in 4k. On the other hand we can add constraints on instances of these classes. TomT0m (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ValterVB there is no reason why this property cannot have multiple values so a movie can have technical specification 'animated' and 'black and white' and 'silent'. The constraints are 'Can have multiple values' and 'values should be 'instance of:technical specification'. 'Problems with constraints' is not a reason to reject a property; it is a reason to fix the problems with the constraints. Filceolaire (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I strongly support a separate property for "film aspect ratio", with the values discussed here as a minimum set. - PKM (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original title[edit]

I want to make you aware of the discussion here. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Original language of film proposed for deletion/merge[edit]

The proposal at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#language_of_work_.28or_name.29_.28P407.29 wants to merge:

  • "original language of work"
  • "language of work".

The main argument is that for books, items are made for a specific editions of works which only have one language. The problem for films is that there is generally just one item for a specific film. Given the disadvantage for films, I opposed the merger there. --- Jura 08:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More property proposals[edit]

Currently there are:

--- Jura 14:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Movies has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
The production year proposal is worth looking into it. I'd be glad to have your comments. --- Jura 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean production date? --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice the duplication. Same thing.  :) --- Jura 00:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A film is a ship. Haven't heard that one before ;) --- Jura 14:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic (Q44578). --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


P31 value: long film[edit]

A few items had as a value for instance of (P31) = feature film (Q24869). As we only have "short film" or film (Q11424) as options, I replaced this with the later. --- Jura 11:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have also medium-length film (Q24865) but isn't used --ValterVB (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully at some point we will be able to use running time for this. --- Jura 13:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to add lost film (Q1268687) ?[edit]

Currently this is rarely used.

  • Should we add this to P31 as a possible secondary value?
  • An alternate solution could be "significant event" (P793). This could make it easier to add qualifiers and it wouldn't get mixed up with the primary values for P31.

--- Jura 13:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of feedback, I will try to add it as P793. At list is at Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/lists/lost films. --- Jura 09:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

drama film (Q130232) in P31[edit]

Currently some items use this as value in P31. It's not in the list of values for P31 and I think it would better fit in part of (P361) where most items use it. --- Jura 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is a film genre, must to be use with genre (P136) --ValterVB (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typo: I did indeed mean P136, not P361 ;) --- Jura 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I agree with you. :) --ValterVB (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok to use P136 values for tv series,as in Lie to Me (Q25182)-- Hakan·IST 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If is a question, my answer is yes. --ValterVB (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but I find it confusing to use drama film (Q130232) as specifically drama television series (Q1366112) and for other occassions generic Transfiguration Church, Krolevets (Q11272426) exists Hakan·IST 21:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "drama film" from P31 => P136. Supposedly, the same should be done for ..nographic film. --- Jura 10:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem with documentary film (Q93204) → ✓ . I added a check for it on Property talk:P577 (most frequent property on film items). --- Jura 14:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+ task added at Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies/Tools#Correct_values_in_P31 --
--- Jura 09:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following the suggestion at Wikidata:Project_chat#Types_of_film.3F, we should probably add "silent short film" and "silent film" to the list of accepted values as well. I hesitate about "animated film". Should this be there or in genre or at both?
--- Jura 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mapping[edit]

For enwiki, I added a mapping to Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies/Tools#Wikipedia_infobox_mapping.

A few fields still need to be mapped and I'd be glad to have your feedback. --- Jura 13:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the property that are missing:

  • costume designer
  • sound
  • dubbing: yes/no

The eswiki/cawiki infoboxes have a few more fields.

Writer/story fields need to be sorted out.
--- Jura 07:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"budget" in infoboxes is currently mapped to the cost property, but maybe it's better to map it to a specific property: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Economics#Budget.
--- Jura 13:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labels[edit]

I started a section on labels. Seems fairly straightforward. --- Jura 09:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Title for Quebec[edit]

Some films have a specific title for Quebec (Q22101947) which may be different from the French title used in France. The infobox at frwiki has a corresponding field. It can be linked to specific dubbing for Quebec or not. At Q385309#P1552, I added a sample for a possible way to include them. There is currently no WMF language code fr-ca or fr-qc. frWP has a list of some.
--- Jura 07:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

running time[edit]

What about duration (P2047)? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At some point it was called "running time" in some languages and "duration" in other languages, but almost only used for "running time".
After it was renamed, I suggested to create a separate property for "running time". Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#running_time
It's currently opposed by one person who thinks we should change P2047 back, some who oppose anything, some who don't use either, and others with good reasons, some .. etc.
Maybe we just need to wait till P2047 gets more of a mess.
--- Jura 22:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication platform[edit]

I think platform (P400) should also be listed as valid qualifier for film publications. See for example Out of Inferno 3D (Q14946061). --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better distribution format (P437). Queryzo (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silent films can have a language[edit]

Unfortunately a large number of films have been given the claim original language of film or TV show (P364) = N/A (Q21686005).

Apart from the obvious error, silence isn't a language, many of these films do have a language which is seen in the intertitle (Q245069) cards.

We should be claiming the language as found in sources, e.g. The Birth of a Nation (Q220394) = English (Q1860) as claimed by the British Film Institute here. Perhaps we could also add a qualifier applies to part (P518) = intertitle (Q245069).

Of course there will be a few films which really don't contain language at all. In that case the language can just be set to <no value>. Danrok (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The use of N/A (Q21686005) in that property is obviously wrong. --Escudero (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends how you define original language of film or TV show (P364) for films. Is it the the part that can get dubbing? Is it the text that appears on signs during the film? Is it the language of subtitles? I don't think this property should be used as main value for the language of subtitles or intertitles. Users are obviously free to render "n/a" as <no value>.
    --- Jura 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

documentary film[edit]

Is genre (P136) the property used to mark a film as documentary film (Q93204)? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a recurring theme over the years is that movies get marked with genres in their instance of (P31) property. Seems like someone should create a bot to clean some of these up. As of today, there are only 43 instances of documentary film (Q93204). --Quartz25 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like eternal language-dependent terms: some call documentary film (Q93204) a genre, some not (and just a type of films). --Infovarius (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animated film?[edit]

Is animated film (Q202866) the proper class for animated films? The properties page is a bit silent on the issue. --Quartz25 (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, why not? Infovarius (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duration[edit]

Running time property proposal was refused longtime ago and at the moment duration (P2047) is used in more than 40k+ film items. I think it is a time to admit its use add it to (at least other) properties in the table.--Jklamo (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Why do you use original language of work (P364) and not language of work or name (P407)? Freakymovie 14:05, 9 October 2017

Looking for right Properties[edit]

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

I've been reviewing the list of properties and I have some doubts:

  1. publication date (P577) of different places. Which should be the correct qualifier, place of publication (P291) or valid in place (P3005)? I know that place of publication (P291) is the "official", but sounds a bit weird for me, specially in other properties like box office (P2142), attendance (P1110)...
  2. première (Q204854) of films. I've seen that sometimes it appears as another date in publication date (P577), but I don't know if it's an optimal solution. What about using significant event (P793), like: . Other propertis can be added, like point in time (P585)10 October 2017.
  3. Roles of film crew member (Q17291399). I've seen P794 (P794), but I think that object has role (P3831) can be used instead, like this: .
  4. television film (Q506240). It's correct publication date (P577) or date of first performance (P1191)? We're storing when a television film (Q506240) was first broadcasted, like in a television series episode (Q21191270).
  5. film series (Q24856). follows (P155) and followed by (P156) are qualifiers of part of the series (P179) or standalone properties?
  6. original broadcaster (P449). It's only for the original country? If I want to add the original broadcaster (P449) in another country / language, I should use qualifiers (with valid in place (P3005)) or maybe broadcast by (P3301) (with qualifier point in time (P585))? I like the second option, because querying this value we can filter public/pay TV, online providers...
  7. References are credits: Usually full cast, crew, companies, music... of a film can be found in closing credits (Q1553078) of the film. How can I add opening credits (Q635115) and closing credits (Q1553078) as sources for movie properties? I don't think self-referencing the item of the movie is the best solution. Maybe stated in (P248)closing credits (Q1553078)?
  8. Reliable sources: It's IMDb considered a reliable source for a reference? Should be removed if there's another source in a specific property? This is the standard procediment with imported from Wikipedia sources.
  9. Other companies: I understand the use of production company (P272), but what about the companies of post-production (Q29415158), special effects (Q381243)...? Maybe something like this: ?
  10. How handle written by and story by? With screenwriter (P58) and qualifiers applies to part (P518)narrative (Q1318295) and applies to part (P518)script (Q3691017)?
  11. Instance of: I've seen animated feature film (Q29168811), film (Q11424), 3D film (Q229390), animated film (Q202866), feature film (Q24869)... which is the correct? Animated and 3D are genres?
  12. Trailers: It's correct something like
    ⟨ The Jungle Book (Q16857406)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ has characteristic (P1552) View with SQID ⟨ teaser campaign (Q4457167)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
    publication date (P577) View with SQID ⟨ 15 September 2015 ⟩
    with its proper reference?

Escudero (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of interesting questions!
    • (12.) Not a direct answer, but the other day I imported trailers from frwiki: Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/lists/trailers. The list gives links to the actual trailers through different properties (instead of just an indication of the date of publication). Maybe there is a better way of doing that.
    • (11.) I think we should stick to the list of values in the table. Maybe Q202866 is worth adding as some of the properties used on these items are considerably different.
    • (8.) I don't think we should remove sources or references from statements unless the statement is altered substantially.
    • (6.) broadcast by (P3301) seems to apply for anything beyond the original one.
    • (5.) For films, it would be good if it was used as a qualifier of the series. This does complicate imports though. Maybe some automated conversion is possible.
    • (4.) Good point. The other day I imported a couple of P577 when someone pointed out that we already had P1191 on some of these.
    • (3.) There is just the slight risk that this might end up confusing it with "character role".
    • (2.) ok for me. Don't hesitate to expand the table.
    • (1.) I'm not sure if these necessarily need to be using the same qualifier.
      --- Jura 06:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Thanks,

  • (12) I think that would be interesting create a new property for trailers, like exists film poster (P3383). Qualifiers can be added for the new property: date of publication, YouTube ID...
  • (11) Why animated film (Q202866) is different? An animated film (Q202866) is a value of genre (P136) or instance of (P31)?
  • (8) My thoughts are that IMDb ID (P345) is not a reliable source, because is a database with user-generated content. I'm OK with the use of other reliable external databases.
  • (5) I've seen coexisting part of the series (P179) with qualifiers follows (P155)/followed by (P156) and also those two qualifiers as properties. I prefer use them as qualifiers because "film A" could have two differents follows (P155) movies according different film series. Why this is more complicate imports?
  • (3) I don't know if it is confusing, but P794 (P794) is being marked as deprecated. I understand its use and I've using that property, but I don't know if we should use a more concrete property.
  • (2) I've trying update the table, but I can't: Multiple translation unit markers for one translation unit. Translation unit text: Properties for Core properties This is a somewhat random first group made for statistical purposes.
  • (1) Yeah, it's right. Escudero (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

  • (12) I'm not sure if we'd want to make an item for every trailer or experiment with Q23766486. The simplest solution could be an URL property.
  • (11) The current solution has the advantage that it's simple. Let's keep it then.
  • (8) I don't subscribe to the concept of universal reliability, so I can't help you on this. Have you ever come across incorrect cast listings at IMDb? Many other sites just mirror it.
  • (5) Mainly for people using HarvestTemplates. For sports seasons, a bot automatically converts them and the result is rather good.
  • (2) Maybe you need to edit the entire page (instead of sections). The translation extension is tricky.
    --- Jura 09:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



  • (12) I'm a bit hesitant to follow that. Maybe we could have two: an commons link property and one for externally hosted ones.
  • (8) A bot added quite a lot of them sometimes in the past (together with links to other websites) and I found them fairly useful when sorting out contribs by another bot who had added the full cast as directors.
    --- Jura 07:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) np for me, if you prefer. Personally, I'm mainly interested in the year of first publication.
  • (A) would you comment on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#novalue, especially on the problem with sample I mentioned today?

Hope this helps.
--- Jura 07:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section for movie theaters[edit]

In the meantime, quite a lot of got items. It might be worth adding a section about these.
--- Jura 06:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

start time (P580) / end time (P582) for tv series[edit]

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

I think, for tv series, we should use publication date (P577) / end time of first publication, instead of start time (P580) / end time (P582), since end time (P582) / "end time of first publication" is or will be subproperty of start time (P580) / end time (P582), respectively, and end time (P582) is ambiguous. Also see the explanation in Wikidata:Property proposal/end time of first publication and Wikidata:Requests for comment/start time / end time vs. publication date of 1st / last episode. --Ans (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is television series season (Q3464665) a subclass of television series (Q5398426)?[edit]

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

Is television series season (Q3464665) a subclass of television series (Q5398426)? --Ans (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say so. Infovarius (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: Why not? --Ans (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, similarly to television series episode (Q21191270) not being television series (Q5398426). --Infovarius (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for adding Authority Control Properties for Israeli Cinema[edit]

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

Hi!

We have a bunch of upcoming authority control property proposals, and we need some help from property createors/admins for creating them:

Ready for creation[edit]

Under Discussion[edit]


Thank you! -- אודי אורון ~ Udi Oron (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dates[edit]

Hey, MovieFex has reverted my attemps to update of the list based on the practice of how we indicate premieres and releases of movies (and also the inclusion of the fairly new presented in (P5072) which in part was explicitly created to be able to include festival appearances). This is despite the discussion above not to use publication date (P577) for premieres, and the descriptions of publication date (P577) and date of first performance (P1191). Could you please weigh in? – Máté (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 3rd place were this is discussed see Property talk:P291. -- MovieFex (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Now that's the thing. The premiere is often not when it's first published (i.e. a release proper) but only a festival apearance or a single red carpet event with a pre-publication date. That is why we widely use P1191 for that and do not include festival screenings at P577. Also, as you know Wikidata:Property proposal/screened at festival was closed with the recommendation to use P5072 on film items. – Máté (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With "we" you mean you? I don't see any support for discontinuing the use of P577. Obviously, I don't want to discourage you to try to include hundreds of festival screenings in P5072. --- Jura 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically might not be included, but this practice is definitely not my idea. I copied the data structure that I had seen at countless other items.I just happen to think that it is logical. – Máté (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precision of P31 and subclasses of types of film (again...)[edit]

Hello all,

Infovarius has put one of my cleanup batches under discussion. Maybe I silently hoped that it would stay under the radar, haha, but I agree it needs to be discussed. What values do we agree upon for instance of (P31)?

Firstly - let me explain why I've been bold and done this cleanup batch. As I mentioned on another talk page, I've created an experimental film browser (WikiFlix) in my user space on Wikimedia Commons. I'm pretty new to this WikiProject and as a newcomer it struck me that the data displayed there is really inconsistent and confusing. Wildy different instance of (P31) values for no apparent reason was one of the main things that struck me. From experience on Wikidata I know that this is not uncommon, although some WikiProjects (like WikiProject Sum of all Paintings) seem to have more strict agreements and even bots that do regular cleanup jobs now. Anyway...

Should we always pick the most specific instance of (P31) value? I have thought about this issue for a long time and weighed the pros and cons quite a bit, and (also from my experience working on database projects in the cultural sector for 20 years now) my opinion on this matter has only become more firm: I think in the cultural domain it's best to agree upon a small set of high-level instance of (P31) values for each domain. I very strongly disagree with the principle of using the most detailed item for instance of (P31) for quite a few reasons:

  • instance of (P31) best indicates the general nature of the thing you describe. A short film is not different from a short silent film in how it's described and written about. Both have the same properties/metadata fields, both can be shown in short film screenings in cinemas and at festivals, both can be shown online in film portals, both may be studied by the same scholars and in the same university courses. It's not like the difference between a film and a painting and a sculpture, for instance. (Films and short films are quite established movie-related terms and tend to have their own festivals, and/or are shown in different contexts, so I think there's some good arguments to have these two as possible instance of (P31) values).
  • If information can be stored in other properties (such as genre (P136), color (P462), movement (P135)...) it should not be part of instance of (P31) but should be stored under those properties. You can say that a film is silent by saying genre (P136) silent film (Q226730) + by having language: no value (qualifier: applies to part: dialogue). I know there's a lot of discussion around this, in other WikiProjects too, and my own point of view is: you can solve this by actually being very clear and going for the most simple solution, which is to keep instance of (P31) general and to use other properties for anything that may be stored there.
  • If that is indeed done properly, then re-users of the content can easily implement features like faceted search (Q1519370), and their data will be more clean and organized (including my own WikiFlix).
  • Queries are less slow because there's no need to drill down a subclass tree. (I know we should not let ontology depend on the performance of Wikidata's SPARQL endpoint, but it is a factor now...)
  • I know, and edit Wikidata in, several languages, and I have noticed that different languages and cultures tend to agree on the high-level concepts but tend to use the more specific concepts differently (or not at all). Using the more high-level concepts is more language-agnostic and more generally applicable. In my native Dutch, for instance, 'korte stomme film' (Dutch for 'silent short film') is not a term that rolls off the tongue really easily or that would commonly be used by film audiences or scholars.
  • Look at how other databases and platforms do it, what terms they use. silent short film (Q20667187) has almost no identifier matches (and I did a search on Mix'n'match). Here on Wikidata, it's actually a term that was mainly created to accommodate a Wikimedia category; it even has no sitelinks. In order to keep data on Wikidata as compatible as possible with external databases I think it's best to align our P31s with the most commonly used classes that other platforms use. In my experience, this also makes the process easier and clearer for partner institutions that want to donate data. This is why, for instance, the Sum of all Paintings WikiProject has agreed upon painting (Q3305213) as its main P31.

To play devil's advocate: if you go for the solution of 'most specific subclass possible': where do you draw the line? You can then equally create items for 'short silent animated black and white film'. Who will decide which ones make sense, which not, and what will be the reasons why?

Anyway, I hope we can come to an agreement. Although I have a well-defined opinion, this is not a hill I will die on. I do hope we arrive at a consistent approach though, because that's even more important IMO if we want to create data that is useful and nice :-).

All the best, fellow film lovers! Spinster 💬 13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Now there are 139 classes of film used.
2) I don't think we can use genre (P136) silent film (Q226730) because I don't consider silent film (Q226730) a genre (it's a technique) as well as animated film (Q202866). But language: no value is quite ok. --Infovarius (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animation films and shorts[edit]

Should animated film (Q202866) and animated short film (Q17517379) be used as genre or as instance? animated film (Q202866) has the claim instance of (P31) = film genre (Q201658), so what I understand is that we should use it with genre (P136), but I realized that in some of the films I added genre (P136) = animated film (Q202866) that claim was removed and replaced with instance of (P31) = animated film (Q202866). If it shouldn't be used as a genre (P136) and it should be instance of (P31) instead animated film (Q202866) and animated short film (Q17517379) should probably be added to the list of core properties as values of instance of (P31) and instance of (P31) = film genre (Q201658) should be removed from animated film (Q202866) to trigger an error in the constraint checks if any of them is used as a value for genre (P136), or in the very least adding a conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838). -- Agabi10 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Agabi10: More general discussion is above. To me, animated film (Q202866) and animated short film (Q17517379) are not genres (which should refer more to topical content) but techniques (which deserve its own property btw). So I would agree to remove instance of (P31) = film genre (Q201658). --Infovarius (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should first add animated film (as well as any other allowable) to values in the instance of section to this page (if other people in the project support it), and only then remove film genre from it. But, as I already wrote here Talk:Q202866, almost all catalog film services use animated films as a genre (Imdb, Letterboxd, Kinopoisk, RottenTomatoes), and it's use more than 1100 in genre (P136) at the moment, so this issue is kind of slippery. Solidest (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the number of uses of film genre and subclasses of film in p31s: https://w.wiki/49nz . Which of those should be allowed to use in p31 in our model? Solidest (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the film[edit]

How to add the length of film? How to add number of the reels of the film? Is the duration property accept x meters of film? --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We use duration (P2047) for this. --Infovarius (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
duration (P2047) is only used for the time length of a movie, I thought. --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erstausstrahlung of Tatort episodes[edit]

I have a question concerning Germanys biggest television cirme series Tatort (Q689438) which turns 51 years this month. Each episode should contain a field which describes what in German is called "Erstausstrahlung". This is the date the episode was first aired on TV. For most of the episodes this is equivalent to publication date (P577) but not for all since a few episodes where shown on festivals or in the cinema before. We need a very clean way to document the Erstausstrahlung for each episode. By the why, this is the date the official number is sorted by (compare de:Liste der Tatort-Folgen). In addition to the date it would be good to also save the production company (which can also be looked up in the table in de:Liste der Tatort-Folgen as "Sender"). --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can qualify the P577 values with "place of publication". --- Jura 11:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And which place do you choose then? Television? And what about the second question concerning the production company? --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Germany? Maybe "original broadcaster" works better than "place of publication"?
Not sure if "Sender" should be production company (P272) or original broadcaster (P449) or both. --- Jura 15:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P179 question[edit]

Look at Tobler and Berg (Q48755088). It is set as part of the series (P179) of the German television series Tatort (Q689438). I think this is not approprite because only episodes of Tatort (Q689438) should be linked with P179 and Tobler and Berg (Q48755088) are characters of the series. Do you agree that this is wrong? And how do you link Tobler and Berg (Q48755088) to Tatort (Q689438) correctly? --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might have more chances of getting response on Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies than here, especially if you ping the project participants.
The problem with that series seems to be that it's a combination of sub-series, that could be distinguished by the its protagonists. So each episode somehow needs to link the sub-series.
It seems you did that, e.g. at Q20817073. An IP did it slightly differently at Q2396045. Maybe we could find a better P31 value for items like Q110839889.
The protagonist(s) should probably also appear as characters statements.
Anyways, I think your approach is sensible. --- Jura 15:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Thanks a lot for your response. I worked the last week very hard on that project and created 80 subseries and entered all the respective episodes. There are about 1200 Tatort episodes in total and so far I matched more than 1100 of them to at least one of those 80 subseries. The rest to follow (a view more subseries have to be created). Here you can see a partial result. Still a lot of data missing, but I'm working on it. Visit User:Jobu0101/Tatort to see more queries showing the current state. --Jobu0101 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now one important question: I'm not so sure how to model that. You suggested that I use characters (P674) to match the characters of a subseries to that series. Another possibility would be to use based on (P144). I have tried out both in Tatort with Batic and Leitmayr (Q110737643). What do you think is better or is there a third even better solution? I see a problem with using {{P|674} because other people might enter further characters of the subseries, but of course I want at that place only those characters which define the subseries and not further characters appearing in the subseries. I hope you understand my point. --Jobu0101 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable work! I had looked into it a while back and figured there were way too many for me, especially as I only watch Q110862588 once in a while.
With "characters (P674)", I meant [1]. I also added that at Q110862588. Maybe it could even have some qualifier that describes their role. Don't hesitate to remove it again, if you prefer another solution.
I'm not quite convinced by "based on (P144)", as I think it may require some previous work. One could also simply refer to the name with ("named after" (P138)). --- Jura 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Thanks a lot for your help. I saw you edited a lot of Tatort items and showcased new stuff. I think characters (P674) with qualifier narrative role (P5800) as main character (Q12317360) could be the solution (which you did at Tatort with Thiel and Boerne (Q110862588)). What I don't like so much are the other entries to narrative location (P840) you added, but maybe you have a better idea how to solve my problem: For the series it is typical that most invistigators have their city the invastigate in. So using some property I want to mark that city. Any ideas how to do so if we now allow many more formally correct items at narrative location (P840)? --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music By / Composer property for groups/bands[edit]

Looking at Suzume and Your Name, they both have Radwimps added as a composer, however composers should only be humans according to its value-type constraint. I think Radwimps should be added as the group playing the music, but I haven't found a property here or on other movies I've searched for so far. And I think those movies might not be the only one with that problem.

Is there a property better suited for adding a musical group to a movie / film, which, at least, played/recorded the music for the film?

--- BananaNetwork (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only propose performer (P175). --Infovarius (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast members[edit]

WikiProject Movies has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Hi! How many cast member (P161) property entries should be specified for a movie? All the cast members, or just the starring ones? In some movie items, this list seems absurdly large. Leon II (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the more the better. visual beauty shouldn't be a consideration – Shisma (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starring roles should be qualified with:
object has role (P3831) → leading actor (Q1765879) (example)
Background roles with:
object has role (P3831) → extra (Q658371) (example)
– Shisma (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information from infoboxes (also cast members from movies) could be exported using Help:Infobox_export_gadget with double clicking on missing (red) entries.
M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the more the better. I wouldn't be too happy about an intentional mass-creation of items for literally anyone who appeared in a film (including those who aren't ever involved in anything else), but strictly speaking it still won't be wrong because of the WD:N criterion 3. --Wolverène (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers.--Leon II (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Properties&oldid=2034116228"