This user has rollback rights on Wikidata.

User talk:MovieFex

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, MovieFex!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata-rollbacker.svgThis user has rollback rights on Wikidata. (verify)

SVU episodes[edit]

Thanks so much for catching the errors I inadvertently made! While using Mix'n'match I thought that removing a match I had made would actually remove the IMDb identifier from the item, but apparently it didn't do this at all. Mahir256 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ISNI identifiers[edit]

Hi MovieFex, I saw you reverted one of my ISNI statements because the link it resolves to appears not to work. The current behaviour of the ISNI portal is quite sad indeed, but there is a way to circumvent that: on the page you are redirected to, just validate the search form again as it is, and it should work. At least it does with Chrome here (not Firefox). Anyway you can check that this identifier is correct by searching for it from . And even if the link does not quite work, these identifiers are useful! They can be used for queries in Wikidata, or be aligned to other identifiers. If you ever find an identifier that is incorrect (that is, does not resolve at all or refers to a different entity), you are very welcome to delete it! Cheers, − Pintoch (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch: May be that this identifier could be useful, but it must work, no matter which browser anyone uses. First this has to be fixed. I've seen, this problem is not new. Some guys told you in December. --MovieFex (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, in this case, feel free to remove the million statements with that property: they will all fail in the same way. Note that there are also identifiers for which there is no link at all: an identifier is useful even if it does not link to a web page.
I don't get it when you write "Some guys told you in December". What? Can you be a bit more specific? I don't remember talking about this problem with anyone else before. − Pintoch (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Nothing has changed, same problem --MovieFex (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well… yes, the problem is still here, but again it is not a reason to delete these identifiers! As far as I can see no one proposed to delete the property because of this problem: feel free to do it, but I have serious doubts about your chances of success.
An identifier is useful as soon as two different entities start using it to refer to the same objects. This is clearly the case for ISNI: it is a very widespread identifier. I do hope that the web portal will be fixed, but in the meantime please let me add these identifiers. Thank you. − Pintoch (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Until this error isn't fixed you're adding garbage. Why don't wait until it works? And yes, I feel free. --MovieFex (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not adding garbage. I don't think you understand what an identifier is. In my case I am adding ISNI identifiers because it will then allow me to add Ringgold identifiers, which are aligned to ISNIs. I don't need to visit the URLs to resolve the ISNIs at all, and many uses of Wikidata are done in this way. I have no intention to wait for months before ISNI fixes their portal. Note that the Ringgold Ids that I will add do not resolve to anything at all (there is no web interface to resolve them). But they are still useful, so Ringgold ID (P3500) has been created for that. Will you go and delete them too because they are "garbage"? − Pintoch (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop removing valid identifiers from Wikidata items, as you did to Charlotte March (Q1067269). It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikidata policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. For editing tests, please use the Wikidata Sandbox. − Pintoch (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong property -> film (Q11424)[edit]

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by that when reverting this change? --Ghuron (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Right property for film is title (P1476), see also d:Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties. -- MovieFex (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Was there any discussion that declares consensus upon using title (P1476) instead of native label (P1705) for original film title? --Ghuron (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ghuron: native label (P1705) is used for literature. -- MovieFex (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It's mainly for places. I think there is some bug in the Russian infobox tool so we keep getting them.
--- Jura 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Pardon? We keep the bug and support bot-errors? -- MovieFex (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, with PetScan, we can clean them up all at once. Somehow Putnik isn't following up on bug reports.
--- Jura 22:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: OK, thank you. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I still don't understand where this was decided, but if you strongly believe this reflects the consensus, I can fix it both here and in ru-wiki (what Jura1 (talkcontribslogs) refers as "putnik's tool"). Its only slightly above 1K instances --Ghuron (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It appears that corresponding change in ru-wiki was done a few months ago: [1] In wikidata for films I've moved data from P1705 to P1476 (where P1476 were absent) and remove P1705 (where it was equal to P1476). The remaining ~150 instances has to be sorted manually (name is the same, but languages are different). --Ghuron (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: THX. @Jura1: for info. -- MovieFex (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I will try to do some maintenance on titles as well.
    --- Jura 09:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Properties in film objects: What should and what should not[edit]

See also Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties. -- MovieFex (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Itzhak Fintzi (Q2612977)[edit]

Which sources do you mean. There are no German sources in the entry. The rather best source for German is the DNB (GND). Here he is named Icko Finci. But that's no good transcription and you don't find many german search results at google. If you use Itzhak Finzi you find many search results, the most of them in conext of his son Samuel Finzi. It's no German transcription, but the english. The German would be Izchak Finzi which also gives some search results. And then with Izko Finzi there are many results with belong only to him. So I think this is the best name for German.

Also he himself uses in social medias Izko Finzi, see Facebook and Twitter]. --Balû (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Balû: If someone uses "Hasi-Spatzi" or "Schmusi-Mausi" on twitter or facebook that doesn't mean that this name is a good lemma for a future entry of "Hans Müller" in the German wiki, see de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen#Personen. But have a look at Filmportal, OFDB or Lexikon des internationalen Films (Itzhak Fintzi). I think these are enough German sources. And uses "Itschak Fintzi". No "Izko" at all. You've already added alternatives, now we have to wait until someone creates the article. So far it is normal to have an international accepted name there. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Der Adler – Die Spur des Verbrechens[edit]

Moin! Du hast die von mir angelegten deutschsprachigen Teile von The Eagle (Q661776) auf instance of (P31)  television series episode (Q21191270) geändert. Ich kenne die Serie nicht, hatte aber angenommen, dass lediglich die 24 Originalepisoden entsprechend ihrer Lange als "Episoden" gelten. Immerhin ist Q43043369 100 Minuten lang, da würde ich eher von einem Fernsehfilm ausgehen, oder? Jedenfalls haben wir in Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/reports/TV episodes/complete nun 36 von 24 Folgen drin, das würde ich gern irgendwie auflösen (wie beim Schwammkopf mit segment of a TV episode (Q29555881)). Übrigens ist dieses Item bei der Erstellung der Items irgendwie übriggeblieben: Q50556945. Der Teil taucht leider im Artikel de:Der Adler – Die Spur des Verbrechens nicht auf, hast du eine Idee? Queryzo (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Tach @Queryzo: Ich habe deshalb television series episode (Q21191270) genommen, da es sich im Gegensatz zu den Tatort-Filmen um eine zusammenhängende Serie zu handeln scheint. Draufgestoßen bin ich über die Kinostarts, bei denen ich, wie du sicher mitbekommen hast, seit ein paar Monaten ein Auge geworfen habe und alle Änderungen checke. (Übrigens: Mittlerweile über 20 Jahre Kinostarts ist auch nicht ohne, ne wahr? ;). Jedenfalls war die Kennzeichnung falsch (Erscheinungsort als Qualifier bzw instance of (P31)). Aber schau doch mal bei 1. Staffel (1.04). Face-smile.svg -- MovieFex (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ich tendiere dazu, den Items das Objekt television film (Q506240) zuzuweisen, dann würden sie aus den Kinostarts rausfallen, oder Jobu0101? Andernfalls müssten sie two-part episode (Q21664088) bekommen, aber television series episode (Q21191270) können sie nicht bleiben. Und dann sollten wir original network (P449) wieder durch place of publication (P291) ersetzen, da ersteres kein gültiger Qualifier für publication date (P577) ist. In den Kinostarts tauchen sie ja dann nicht mehr auf. Queryzo (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Queryzo: Also two-part episode (Q21664088) gefällt mir am besten, das entspricht auch den Tatsachen. Allerdings halte ich den Qualifier Erscheinungsort "Deutschland" für nicht korrekt. Vielleicht in Verbindung mit dem Sender wie bei DVD-Veröffentlichungen. Möglicherweise ist bei Fernsehfilmen ein neuer Qualifier nötig, dass Land und Sender eingetragen werden können. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC) @Queryzo: Nachtrag: Geht Erscheinungsort "Sender"? --MovieFex (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, dann können wir uns ja schonmal auf Doppelfolge einigen. Das Thema mit den Qualifiern kommt genau zur rechten Zeit, denn es werden derzeit zig Episodenitems erstellt, bei denen ich deutsche Labels etc. ergänze (zuletzt M*A*S*H). Bei den landesspezifischen Ausstrahlungsdaten habe ich bislang immer gezögert, weil es dazu noch keine Regel gibt. Etabliert hat sich Erscheinungsort = Deutschland etc. – wenn du aber der Meinung bist, dass das nicht optimal ist, sollte man es im Wikiproject Movies ansprechen. Letztlich sollten keine Qualifier verwendet werden, die constraint violations erzeugen, hier muss ggf. nachjustiert werden (geht einfach in den jeweiligen Propertyseiten). Erscheinungsort = "Sender" dürfte wohl einen Fehler erzeugen. Queryzo (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Queryzo: Ja, das ist korrekt: Filme mit television film (Q506240) werden nicht in den Kinostarts gelistet. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jobu0101: Gosford Park (Q165392) und The Last Samurai (Q207130) wird in den Kinostarts immer noch nicht gelistet, obwohl bei beiden mehrfach Edits vorgenommen wurden (bei Last Samurai gerade vorher von mir). Ich finde keinen Fehler bei den Objekten, vielleicht Du. Gegebenenfalls musst du das manuell eintragen. -- MovieFex (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@MovieFex: Das Problem war Deprecated rank: [2]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edits to change to your scheme[edit]

Hi MovieFex,

Please avoid reverting other people's edits just because they don't fit your scheme. If you want to change a scheme, please open a discussion on the relevant WikiProject. Edit summaries are not a productive way to beyond an initial comment.
--- Jura 14:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: I asked you for further informations because of your revert, but there was no answer at all. You're deleting informations. -- MovieFex (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In the meantime, did you look at the item's talk page or are you still just blindly reverting? If the answer can be found on an item's talk page, I get the impression that someone isn't really interested.
--- Jura 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: OK, it seems that you're not discussing about an object, you just want to be right. I asked you for further information, but you didn't answer. Now you become personal, because something is not on your mind. STOP THAT! -- MovieFex (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You asked for the place to look for the cast .. is this still something you haven't found? Nothing personal, just a question to the person who asked for help trying to find it.
--- Jura 14:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Call me stupid, but to be honest, the talk page was the least place where I was looking for the cast. And this is not the place where it should be. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There Will Be Blood (Q244315)[edit]

The world premiere took place in 2007, not in 2008. The film is 2007, not 2008.--Нинтендо (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Нинтендо: You have to pay attention to the qualifier place of publication (P291). -- MovieFex (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
It's so stupid, you don't understand. --Нинтендо (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Нинтендо: First of all: don't delete my posts here! Second: Get familiar with the rules and the guidelines –> Help:Contents. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox of movie displays two dates and uncorrect category. It's normal? Really??? Understand?--Нинтендо (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Нинтендо: Every country has its own release date. It is marked with the qualifier place of publication (P291). I give you another example: Titanic (Q44578). And this is absolutely correct. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think talking to you is pointless. Farewell.--Нинтендо (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- MovieFex (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello I begun to add this on videogame film adapation, and i stopped, because i was not sure. I asked to the french village pump. You answered me on this question here : [3]

Google translation [4].

You can look to my contribution and delete all --Archimëa (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Archimëa, MovieFex: there is several problems here. As I said on the french chat, I think the whole idea of adding "adaptation" (either the general item or more specific ones) as a genre (P136) is a bad idea. The information is already here whith other properties, why duplicating it? I think we should just delete all statements genre (P136) = film adaptation (Q1257444) and if we want to have twice the same information, then we can automatically add it on all the 7100 items that are adapations - where only 3914 items have genre (P136) = film adaptation (Q1257444) right now -, human beings shouldn't waste time on such simple tasks where robots are very good and quick and humans very bad and slow.
That said, I don't understand the comment "wrong property, film based on video game", but neither in the property nor the values is anything again "video game" both are for all works. Do I miss something here?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Archimëa, VIGNERON: In this case film adaptation (Q1257444) is the wrong property, it should be "film based on video game" like in frwiki –> fr:Catégorie:Adaptation d'un jeu vidéo au cinéma but this property is missing here as film genre. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation but I'm a bit twice confused: first, film adaptation (Q1257444) is an item, not a property and then, film adaptation (Q1257444) is for all works ; so video games are included, no? (or do you consider video game not to be works?) ; in bonus, is adapation really a genre? (maybe but it feel a bit strange and I would prefer to have a reference as confirmation). Anyhow, film adaptation (Q1257444) is not needed as the information is already here through based on (P144) ; that why I'm suggesting to remove all the genre (P136) = film adaptation (Q1257444), which would solve the problem, do you agree? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I don't think so that film adaptation (Q1257444) should be deleted but I am not the one who can decide this. May be better you ask at Wikidata:WikiProject Movies. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done and after looking more into it, I see something that might explain your position : film adaptation (Q1257444) is for all types works but it's wrongly link to de:Literaturverfilmung which is only for literary works. Did I get it right? (if so, I will remove the wrong link and move it to a new item I'll create for it).
@VIGNERON: No you're wrong, the link to dewiki is correct, see also de:Kategorie:Literaturverfilmung. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
So please explain me! If you don't explain, the problem will stay.
If the link is not wrong, is the article wrong? Look at the 20 links to article on Wikipedias on film adaptation (Q1257444) their all about all type of works, the 2 article on the German and Ukrainian Wikipedias seems to be the only ones limited to literary works. For your example, de:Kategorie:Literaturverfilmung is for litterary works and is linked to Category:Films based on literature (Q8126322) which is not linked to film adaptation (Q1257444) (which is for all works and is already linked to Category:Films based on works (Q8126463) also for all works).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: There is no problem. The collection of literature you can see below the headline "Literatur" are the sources. -- MovieFex (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You really do think it not a problem to have only one item for both en:Film adaptation and de:Literaturverfilmung? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

VIGNERON Now I see what you mean. German Admin is informed. -- MovieFex (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Danke. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Guten Tag MovieFex. Mir gefällt, dass du dich unter andern um die Filme auf der lb-Wiki kümmers. Wäre es möglich dass wir uns mal treffen? Du kannst mir auch deine Antwort per Mail senden. MfG, --Soued031 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


The things about merges, MovieFex, is that the history of one or other item is always obscured; but never lost since the redirect item continues to have its history; and it can be found via the history of the remaining substantive item. If you want to revise my merges, knock yourself out, but I'll continue to merge as I see fit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I cannot see any system of your merges. You merged Six Underground (Q56084843) into the newer object, but with Life Goes On (Q29549638) you merged into an object that should have been deleted. -- MovieFex (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. The objects are not deleted, MovieFex. They become redirects the history of which is still accessible. Until you grasp this salient fact, my merges will probably continue to cause you pain. In rare instances - I've done, say 1k of merges in the last month or so - I choose to merge into the newer item to preserve its descriptions rather than having to redo them. Help:Merge might help: it does note, when explaining a manual marge "The recipient item is usually the item that is used more often ... When in doubt, it's best to choose the item with the lowest Q####", but that is all it has to say on the matter, presumably for the reason that it does not much matter which is merged into which because nothing is lost. As I am not in doubt about what I'm doing, I choose whichever one I think has the better decriptions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: If you would do so it would be ok but do you really think that this description was the better one? Besides this this object is already used in several wikis as you can see in the page informations. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Sometimes the merge does not work out in the direction I intended. Shit happens. You have yet to provide any explanation for why this whole thing is important. You have asserted, incorrectly, that things get deleted and that history is lost. You are waving some wikipedia article around like a shroud, when even a moment's thought would tell you that the article-to-?item relationship is updated, with some latency, automatically. You are waving some wikipedia article around despite the obvious truism that a sitelink moved from an item in a merge that goes in a direction that you are okay has exacly the same issue of a need for an update. So I dunno, MovieFex. What's it all about, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I agree, what is it all about? And eh, who started the discussion? -- MovieFex (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:MovieFex[edit]

Zur Kenntnis. XenonX3 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


In case of movies, we use publication date (P577) for wide releases, while we use date of first performance (P1191) for the first public screening. Other festival screenings can be added with presented in (P5072). – Máté (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Máté: This is not correct, for films we use publication date (P577) see also Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
While Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties does not seem to be really maintained properly, it doesn't say anything that would be contrary to what I explained above. publication date (P577) is indeed used for movies, however, for actual publications (releases) only, an not for one-off screenings (festival screenings count as such). For those, pleas use the properties above, and do not change items that include information in the proper structure. – Máté (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Máté: Are there any policies or guidelines you are referring to? -- MovieFex (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As you've seen, guidelines are not well maintained, but it is also not something that needs to be set in a guideline. In addition to that it's been the de facto standard for many years, the descriptions of the properties make it clear how to use them. P1191 has an alias “premiere”, and it is for the “date a work was first debuted, performed or live-broadcasted”. That is the first screening (red-carpet premiere etc.). P577 is for the “date or point in time when a work was first published or released”. A festival screening does not equal to being published or released. Theatrical/home video/online releases are releases. We usually record the first by market. P5072 is for an “event at which a talk, film, paper, or poster was presented”. That is exactly what a festival is. Best, Máté (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Máté: In film objects we have mostly several publishing dates and I do not agree that you want to split them in publication date (P577) / date of first performance (P1191) and presented in (P5072). The next one claims that only location of first performance (P4647) is correct. Some films first were published in TV and were screened later on festivals. So you have to take broadcast by (P3301) for the first publishing. What you call a proper structure is only interpretation and matter of taste and I call it confusing. So far Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties counts. Best -- MovieFex (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's really not that complicated. It is important to keep actual releases (what P577 is for) separate from other screenings. And what is more, P577 and P1191 may even contain the same date in some cases, where no advance premiere occured before a main release. Also, I feel it important to say that this is not my idea or wish, but the way it's been done since P1191 exists, and one of the reasons for creating P5072 was exactly that there were no other way to add festival screenings. If you decide to merge these properties now, your are trying to overhaul the existing system. I have updated the project page to reflect how it is done now. – Máté (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, you might want to check out the talk page of said project page, where some of our colleagues actually agreed not to use P577 for premieres, but P1191 instead. – Máté (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I know that page and it does not support your reasoning. I have added a lot of publishing dates in film objects but if you insist to impose your changes I won't do it anymore. Your acting is based on interpretation and personal taste without any discussion. That's not the way how it works. -- MovieFex (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've literally just wrote that it is not personal taste but based on precedence and discussions. I have already shown you that it also derives from the property scopes and descriptions. I really don't get you. – Máté (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Can you please explain why do you think Special:Diff/842976157 is wrong? My understanding is that genre (P136) is genre, including film genre, and this is a fantasy film. thanks, Eran (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@ערן: Then fantasy film (Q157394) would have been correct. You're adding the wrong properties. Please correct your script or bot see User_talk:MovieFex#Properties_in_film_objects:_What_should_and_what_should_not. -- MovieFex (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't wrong, e.g both fantasy film (Q157394) and fantasy (Q132311) (genre of literature, film, television and other artforms) are correct. Anyway, if you want to have a refinement for more specific Q e.g fantasy (Q132311)=>fantasy film (Q157394) I don't object that you will replace it. Eran (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)