Jump to navigation Jump to search
Starred in works
- Support – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteer23 (talk • contribs) at 08:31, July 28, 2019 (UTC).
- Support – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuesh93 (talk • contribs) at 08:32, July 28, 2019 (UTC).
- Support David (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Seems to be an inverse property to cast member (P161)? ... pinging wikiproject ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This definitely can be dervied from cast member (P161), so it's redundant. Not sure what's the main reason behind it? Li Song (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Movies
- Oppose Can indeed be derived from cast member (P161) and we don't want to duplicate information that can easily be derived. Mbch331 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The argument for "inverse of cast member (P161), thus can be derived" is valid, but my personal opinion for being opposed to this is, item pages for these persons will never be stable (until they stop appearing in movies/shows), and will require double updates for a long time to remain consistent. For instance, there are other inverse pairs follows (P155)-followed by (P156) or season (P4908)-has part (P527), but these tend to stabilize, since items that appear in sequences (episodes/seasons) are not shuffled/reordered later, a season typically ends within a year (and mostly earlier), etc. Similarly, number of episodes (P1113) can be derived, but there is still value in having that information directly on a series/season. TheFireBender (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I think inverse properties should be avoided wherever possible (See phab:T209559) U+1F360 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as an unnecessary inverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose --Sabas88 (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)