Talk:Q20977110
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (Q20977110)
description: 2019 film directed by J. J. Abrams
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Speculative/presumed information[edit]
With items into the future, while there can be proposed events and appointments, until they are factually correct and supported by evidence, they should not be added to Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: Come on, half of the statements you deleted had proper references on them. – Máté (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Máté: There is no movie, once there is a movie then there is the reality. How can there be actors for a movie that hasn't occurred, it is presumed. 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: They've all signed on to be in it. If they are cut or don't appear for any reason in the movie, the statement can be depreciated. Same for the release date: it is confirmed by the distributor. If it is moved, we can depreciate. – Máté (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- But it doesn't work that way does it? Prince Charles can be added as King of England, we will just leave the date open, and Prince William pencilled in for the Prince of Wales. Why shouldn't we wait until they are facts, rather than announcements? Adding as the truth and now with the possibility of deprecating later doesn't seem like the best practice to me. How about we seek the community's opinion on which is the preferred means, rather than you and I arguing here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: But it is already true. They ARE the cast and that is the release date of a movie actively in (pre-)production. Does it really matter if it is completely finished or not? – Máté (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- They are the people appointed to be the cast when it happens. It is a semantic argument, and it all depends on when the community decides that an action happens. As I said, we can argue back and forth about the semantics as we have a different point of view, and I will cede to whatever the community says is the point of actuality of proposed to real. Under this plan we would have to have start dates of when people are appointed to a cast, then have an end date if they are cut, their acting gets cut, or they die, and someone else is appointed to the role. Getting horribly complex compared to just waiting until things happen and a film becomes a film. Re pre-production, I know, and that is why the producer, director, and all others that have started in their roles were left in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: But it is already true. They ARE the cast and that is the release date of a movie actively in (pre-)production. Does it really matter if it is completely finished or not? – Máté (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- But it doesn't work that way does it? Prince Charles can be added as King of England, we will just leave the date open, and Prince William pencilled in for the Prince of Wales. Why shouldn't we wait until they are facts, rather than announcements? Adding as the truth and now with the possibility of deprecating later doesn't seem like the best practice to me. How about we seek the community's opinion on which is the preferred means, rather than you and I arguing here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: They've all signed on to be in it. If they are cut or don't appear for any reason in the movie, the statement can be depreciated. Same for the release date: it is confirmed by the distributor. If it is moved, we can depreciate. – Máté (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Máté: There is no movie, once there is a movie then there is the reality. How can there be actors for a movie that hasn't occurred, it is presumed. 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to have another instance of (P31) value for planned films then film (Q11424). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did have that initial thought, though that became a different argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the release date makes the difference, but in general, they have a second P31 as well. There is also a proposal for a more specific property: Wikidata:Property_proposal/publication_status.
--- Jura 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the release date makes the difference, but in general, they have a second P31 as well. There is also a proposal for a more specific property: Wikidata:Property_proposal/publication_status.
- I did have that initial thought, though that became a different argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the statement can be referenced, the information can be added. It's probably worth repeating that Wikidata uses ranks to indicate information that was shown to be incorrect. This is different compared to some other projects (notably English language Wikipedia).
For some films, it's actually interesting to know that some actors are not part of the film that was finally released. Q30321629 should include (in one way or the other) the actor that was (mostly) edited out of the final cut. For Q30726990#P161, it was news that the protagonist of the previous ones wasn't included.
--- Jura 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- This is just complete nonsense! Once data has been added, NOBODY EVER BOTHERS TO CORRECT IT! It is so very annoying always to find movies with wrong directors and so on, just because someone thought it would be a good idea to add the directors years before the movie actually has been made. This is one of the points that make Wikidata untrustworthy and why I never will recommend anybody to use Wikidata as a source. --178.6.165.156 13:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)