Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Fictional universes

Move to Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universesEdit

I propose to move the task force to Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universes per Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/07#Rename "task forces" to "project". The fewer pages and backlinks it has, the simpler can it be moved. --Marsupium (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Marsupium:.   Done

First taskEdit

I am not sure that it is really the best solution to make 'fictional equivalents of real things', like 'fictional lion', 'fictional creative work', 'fictional jewellery' etc. I think the first task here would be to make a list and/or summary of previous discussions on this topic, for example Zolo's proposals for properties 'truth value' and 'is fictional'. Zolo's proposals were not really rejected, but there is no consensus for any solution brought up until now. Another solution would be to make fictional equivalents of the properties {{P|31|| (fictional instance of) and perhaps subclass of (P279). When there is such an overview, we could hopefully put a step forward and really build good practices. Bever (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bever: I'm afraid this horse is dead, the property and the item are here. Truth value would mean we have to use a boolean on every query, this solution has not this problem and is clean. TomT0m (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

use of "fictional" itemsEdit

It seems that the latest discussions was in favor of using items like Martinique Macaw (Q74575) to describe fictional items, but to what extent ? If a fictional character is said to be born in London, should we use "fictional London" ? Or should we only use fictional Xs for some key properties like instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). Note that we cannot use them in non-item properties anyway. --Zolo (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor to keep things consistent, it's easier to always create the fictional item imho, no question to ask yourself, easy answer to newbies, no particular cases when we want to automate something. Maybe things are a little more complex in the case of biographie or romanced true stories though. TomT0m (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
To ease the creation of a fictional item, maybe we could code a gadget ? TomT0m (talk)
(edit conflict) If I understand the property fictional analog of (P1074) properly we have to create a second item <fictional foo> for every item <foo> and add this property??? Double the 15.000.000 items by bot? The property documentation gives "classes item" as "suggested values". I do not understand why we should handle fictional classes and fictional instances differently. But I think that we will run into weird trouble even with classes only:
I shall not say
<cup of tea of John Doe in the story "Foo tales"> instance of (P31) <cup of tea>.
<cup of tea of John Doe in the story "Foo tales"> instance of (P31) <fictional cup of tea>.
<fictional cup of tea> fictional analog of (P1074) <cup of tea>. ?
In guess that it makes much more sense to state that each fictional cup of tea is an instance of a cup of tea/that the class of cups of tea has the real and fictional ones as tokens. I do not think this property is a good idea. It is even worse regarding the fact that fictional is relative. What about predictions about the future? What about historical novels? Those with only historical facts? Those with mostly historical facts? What about a satire about Barack Obama (Q76) with (naturally) false(=unreal=fictional) facts? Is it about a <fictional analog of Barack Obama>? The articles bundled by possible world (Q1088088) might be a good starting point for reading to discuss these questions. Using that expression I think our classes should be usable for all possible worlds including the fictional ones. For the moment I am quite sure that we should use our current classes as real and fictional ones unless somebody brings good arguments for the opposite. Regards, --Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Your way of talking seems familiar, do we know each other ? Of course you are overdoing it kind of a lot, we will have only a fraction of fictional items, almost all of them won't have fictional analogs. The advantage of this solution is that we maintain a clear distinction beetween real world and fictional world object, so that fictional worls items will appear in queries only if someones want them. For the possible worlds question, please be clearer. TomT0m (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologise. I might have learned English too much on the street or use too much pluralis auctoris (Q280177) and did not plan to address especially you, but had an edit conflict.
  • I fear I might not overdo. One would not only need such <fictional foo> classes for subclass of (P279)- and instance of (P31)-statements, but also for depicts (P180)-statements and similar ones for literature which will force require to double every class used for those statements. The more the Wikidata project and especially WD:WPVA will go on, the nearer will the ratio of needed <fictional foo> items get to 0.5 of the Wikidata items.
  • That is necessary, of course, but I think that there is a better solution then: subclass of (P279) <fictional entity (Q14897293)> should be enough. It is then necessary to exclude them explicitly.
I would like to explain my thoughts better, though I only came here interrupting my Wikidata break I am currently on since I feared that fictional analog of (P1074) will lead to much work that might not be constructive. Every possible world is sort of a coherent (cf. Coherentism (Q1778809)) description of a way the world could possibly be. Every coherent "fictional system" is a possible world. It might have some rules. Some stories by Thomas Mann (Q37030) might be in accordance with all physical law (Q214070). The "Harry Potter fictional system" might only be in accordance with parts of all physical law (Q214070). Regards, --Marsupium (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
What I find a little strange (well, not really) is that you are using (in a bad context) a concept I recently used to deal with inconsistencies in Wikidata. But I'll assume this is totally unrelated :) No problem wath ya talking Yo. The meaning is more confusing. TomT0m (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
About real people in fictional works, I have just seen Julius Caesar (Q3188509) about Julius Casesar as depicted in Asterix. He is clearly assimilated with the real Julius Casear though depicted in a humorous way. So should he be a "fictional analog" of Julius Caesar. In other works, the cutoff between fictional characters and real characters may indeed be more problematic, unless we decide that everything that appears in a fictional work is fictional. But then that does not sound really satisfying. For visual arts, should a 19th century painting of Alexander the Great be said to depict a fictional Alexander ? What about an official portrait of Napoleon ? --Zolo (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest this way:
--Paperoastro (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fictional person and fictional humanEdit

So I think fictional person comprises fictional humans and various sorts of mythological creatures with a sort of human-like behavior (deities, hobbits, etc.), right ? There seems to be some edge cases though, like squib (Q6133514). --Zolo (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We could use the instance instance of (P31) -> fictional character (Q95074) for all fictional character (with Q95074 subclass of fictional entity (Q14897293)) and use fictional analog of (P1074) with human for human characters to maintain the connection with the "real world". Imho, squib (Q6133514) is a class and could be used in a hierarchy to classify the characters of the universe of Harry Potter. --Paperoastro (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the hierachy should be the same for fiction and non-fiction, but I think the main practical difference is that many fictional characters are not really humans (gods, monsters, etc.) So would that be ok to:
  1. have fictional human (Q15632617) fictional analog of (P1074): human (Q5)
  2. have person (Q215627) fictional analog of (P1074): person (Q215627)
  3. move a good part of p31: person (Q215627) to p31: fictional human (Q15632617) ?
--Zolo (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
To avoid the creation of several items, I suggest for fictional people:
  1. P31 -> fictional character (Q95074)
  2. fictional analog of (P1074) -> human (Q5) (as principal property, not qualifier).
The same for other kinds of characters (animals, objects, and so on...). In this manner, imho, we do not need to create items like fictional human (Q15632617). --Paperoastro (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This would not be really satisfying, in fictions a lot of characters are non human and could be a person in broader sense. I think that fictional human is just a subclass of fictional characters. I think a few more items are really not a problem, one day you will wake up and they are likely to be there anyway :). TomT0m (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the problem for other kind of characters? Mickey Mouse (Q11934): P31-> fictional character (Q95074) and fictional analog of (P1074) -> house mouse (Q83310); Vulcan (Q1088708): P31 -> fictional object and fictional analog of (P1074) -> planet (Q634). --Paperoastro (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I would tend to think that Donald is a Toon :)

There are two fictional human items -> fictional human (Q15632617) and Q15403010

Other question about fictional personsEdit

So I created Huey (Q15698944) as a fictional duck. But he also sounds like a fictional person in the sense, that there is a human-like feel about him. Should I also ass "instance of fictional person" ? (I do not think that all fictional ducks can be considered as fictional "persons'). -Zolo (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He can speak, he is intelligent … I think it's OK to say that if it match the definition of fiction person. he is also a toon, so if toons are fiction persons it's also OK to say that he is a toon and that toons are fiction persons, I have no strong opinion. TomT0m (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose he is if a toon is just a character from a cartoon, but maybe not taking a more restrictive definition found on fr:Toon and elsewhere. Actually the fictional person subclass tree is strating to look interesting. --Zolo (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Fictional TaxonsEdit

(I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this proposal, so please tell me where I should go if I’m wrong here.) I’ve thought a bit about how to map fictional characters, especially if they belong to fictional species, and I think the most “structured” way would be to create “fictional taxons” analog to the “real”, biological taxons (taxon (Q16521)). So, for example, northern giraffe (Q15083) has the following properties:

And if there ever where a real, relevant giraffe, it would be tagged as instance of (P31) northern giraffe (Q15083). We do this already for humans: Albert Einstein (Q937) instance of (P31) human (Q5).

Now the proposal: We create a data object “fictional taxon” and tag it as follows:

And then we create our fictional taxonomy, so to tag Donald Duck (Q6550), we could create the taxon “fictional duck in the Disney universe” and set:

Another example would be:

and then

Problems/unsolved questions I have with this model:

  1. You get a lot of fictional taxons.
  2. A lot of universes include ducks. When do we create a new “fictional duck in universe X”-object and when does reuse of an existing “fictional duck”-object suffice?
  3. Where do we draw the line between fictional and real taxons? Should we build up a whole fictional taxon tree for every fictional universe and then create parent taxon (P171)-relations between taxons as fit (which I think works best for large fictional taxons with a great independence from reality). Or should we try to directly refer fictional taxons to analog “real” taxons (which I think would be best for universes who only introduce a few new taxons).
  4. What should the “root taxon” of a fictional taxonomy be? “lifeforms in the Harry Potter universe”?
  5. In stories that don't introduce a fictional taxonomy at all, how should we map characters?

I’d love to hear your feedback on this! --mxmerz talk 14:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • “fictional taxon” subclass of (P279): taxon (Q16521) just about this statement, don't use subclass of, use fictional analog of. We created this property such as we don't mix classification of fictional stuffs and real world things. Apart from that I don't think an analog of real world taxonomy is really insteresting. TomT0m (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed it. Could you define “interesting”? I agree that it wouldn’t make much of a difference for fictional universes which don’t introduce their own species or change much of our reality, but especially for large universes (Star Wars, Middle Earth,…), couldn’t fictional taxons be useful to describe the in-universe relations between species and their relation to “real” species? --mxmerz talk 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of a real universe with a real philogeny as in biological taxonomy, but why not. TomT0m (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tree of fictional creatures/personsEdit

We should work with this tree for some time. It seems like some nodes are superfluous, some are in wrong place (at least from Russian labels view). Infovarius (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, items like list of Star Trek races (Q1700422)     are just silly with their french label Star Trek Ethnographia, which is not a class of fictional character, it's a classification by itself :) the english label is extraterrestrial from Star Trek, something totally different, with the label speces of humanoid alien from Star Trek which is yet something totally different.
I would propose to rename this class extraterrestrial creatures of Star Trek, such that Spoke is an instance of it, and to create a class Star Trek Species, such that and
< Vulcan (Q6497384) > instance of (P31)   < Star Trek Species >
< Vulcan (Q6497384) > subclass of (P279)   < extraterrestrial creatures of Star Trek >
Same goes from character race (Q2607197)     which should not be in the subclass tree but more
< Star Trek Species > subclass of (P279)   < character race (Q2607197)     >
All right ? TomT0m (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Infovarius (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What property to set the fictional universe for a work?Edit


I thought from fictional universe (P1080) would be the right property to indicate that a work is in a fictional universe (say for example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) is a work in the universe Harry Potter universe (Q5410773)) but it seems that it is only for the fictional elements inside the book, so what would be the right property for the work itself? -Ash Crow (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

MaEr suggests to use part of (P361).
As I said on his talk page, to distinguish between the franchise elements and the fictional universe items could be interesting.
That would allow to generate a list of each items of a fictional universe, from an internal point of view.
But a quick review of the pertinence of part of should be done, to identify the cases were it's a little bit problematic to have several part of properties for a franchise element. --Dereckson (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"Part of" is also supposed to be used for the magazine in which a short story is published, or so I guess if we want to be consistent with Help:Sources. It seems that this could cause some confusion. --Zolo (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You use also "Part of" for a brother or sister of a sibship… "Part of" is a very generic property. --Harmonia Amanda ({{int:Talkpagelinktext}}) 23:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Zolo and Harmonia Amanda — indeed, "part of" is very generic. According to Property talk:P361, it can link anything to anything.
Property talk:P1080 says that from fictional universe (P1080) links a fictional entity to a fictional universe. The property documentation says: domain = any under the subclass tree of fictional entity (Q14897293). This is also what the smaller blue box in Property talk:P1080 suggests. The language-dependant labels and descriptions, however, vary a bit, and aren't very clear. In some translations, they omit the information that both entity and universe should be fictional. --MaEr (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess we should have a new property "Fictional universe of the work" (in French "univers de fiction de l'œuvre") to tell that a work uses this fictional universe? -Ash Crow (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, we can change the constraints on from fictional universe (P1080) so that we can use it, but I am not sure it is a good idea because Harry Potte volume 1 p1043: Harry Potter seems to mean something like "Harrry Potter volume 1 is a book that exists only in the Harry Potter Wikiverse. @Dereckson: if you want to get a list of objects from the Harry Potter universe, you should add the condition that the item should be about a ficitonal entity anyway, so that you do not get items like "list of Harry Potter characters ([1]). -Zolo (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We clearly need either a new property (the suggested "Fictional universe of the work") or to change the constraint on from fictional universe (P1080). I can understand the need for a purely in-universe property so I would support a new property which would be used only for the works in a fictional universe. The same property, but with an out-universe point of view. And we could then clarify the description of both properties. What do you think? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather create a new property than change the existing one. The new property could be something like: (real-world literary work) describes (fictional universe). In the opposite direction, there could be the property: (fictional universe) is described by (real-world literary work). --MaEr (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems good to me. (but the name you suggest seam a bit too generic for such a specific use, and « described by » would in French translate to « décrit par », which is already used by described by source (P1343)) -Ash Crow (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about the name: would "describes the fictional universe" and "described in the work" would fit ? It seems clear to me, not confusing with any other property. -Ash Crow (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with these suggestions.--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Actually this link with the next section. We need these properties:
  1. to link a fictional element to his fictional universe : from fictional universe (P1080)
  2. to link a fictional element to the work in which it appears : "Part of"? A new one? (discussion next section)
  3. to link a work with the fictional universe it describes : a new one (discussion here)
So if we speak of 3 here, I suggest "Fictional universe of the work" for this property, instead of "is described by" (like MaEr (talkcontribslogs) proposed; too generic) and of "described in the work" (like Ash Crow (talkcontribslogs); which would fit better for 2). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my proposal in this section is to create two new properties:
  1. to link a work with the fictional universe it describes: <work> "describes the fictional universe:" <universe>
  2. conversely, to link a fictional universe with a work that describes it: <universe> "described in the work:" <work>
"Fictional universe of the work" is not a really good property name as is does not fit in a <x> <property> <y> pattern. -Ash Crow (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
So it would be:
  1. to link a fictional element to his fictional universe : from fictional universe (P1080)
  2. to link a fictional element to the work in which it appears : "Part of"? A new one? "present in the work" / "mentionned in the work"? (discussion next section)
  3. to link a work with the fictional universe it describes : a new one : <work> "describes the fictional universe:" <universe>
  4. to link a fictional universe with a work that describes it: a new one : <universe> "described in the work:" <work>
3 and 4 being the reverse of one another. Ok, I approve the name suggestion.--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@MaEr, Zolo, Dereckson, Harmonia_Amanda:: I made the proposals for the two properties discussed here. -Ash Crow (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(The properties takes place in fictional universe (P1434) and fictional universe described in (P1445) were created shortly after this discussion, and the issue was resolved.) --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Need another propertyEdit

Hello, I think we need another property “present in the (fictional) work” (in French: « apparaissant dans l'œuvre »). This property would indicate in which work of the item is present. It would be like Property:P1080 but for out-universe information. For exemple Elessar (Q3721872) <present in> The Lord of the Rings (Q15228), or Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets (Q15720826) <present in> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Q47209).

Currently we use Property:P361 but it's so imprecise many contributors delete these, yet we need it for generating lists from a specific work and not a fictional universe. What do you think? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say <fictional element> "present in the work" <work> for characters actually present in the work, and <fictional element> "mentioned in the work" <work> for characters simply named (yes, I want two new properties here as well. Could help with long and complicated stories like A Song of Ice and Fire (Q45875), where we have characters that are mentioned in one novel and really present in the next one.) -Ash Crow (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I did the first demand ("present in work") Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work. Should I make the second one too, @Ash Crow:?

Fictional stars, protostars, planets, moons, asteroids and suchEdit


I'm trying to sort all the fictional astronomical object in the Serenityverse (Q17413155), and I'm not always sure about what instance of (P31) to set. Here are some comments/questions:

  1. For fictional stars, there was an item stars and planetary system in fiction (Q3972970) with articles on en: and it:. I splitted it in two sub-items : fictional star (Q17424291) and fictional planetary system (Q17424312).
  2. For fictional protostars, I'm not sure what to do? Either use fictional star (Q17424291) or create a fictional analog of protostar (Q204903)... Same question for fictional brown dwarves.
  3. For fictional planets, no problem: fictional planet (Q2775969) already exists and is already in use (e.g. on the Star Wars planets)
  4. For fictional moons: Endor (Q832100) uses fictional planet (Q2775969), but it looks like there is a mess in interwikis, as some Wikipedia articles are about the planet and not it's moon (at last es: who has Endor (Q12180673) for the moon). I guess it would be better to create a new "Fictional moon" item instead of using fictional planet (Q2775969). Am I right?
  5. For everything else: I guess we have to create fictional analogs to comets, asteroids, galaxies. I wasn't able to find them if they already exist...

-Ash Crow (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) How many items about non-existant stuff from Serenity... Are they all notable? --Infovarius (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When to create fictional universe items?Edit

I would guess that most fictional universes that have items for their component characters/entities/concepts do not have items themselves. Should all of them have items? If not, is there any other way to associate the fictional entity with the book/story/series? --Yair rand (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good question. My answer would be when you need it. I guess any work who have a character item deserves a corresponding item anyway for the universe he belongs to for structural reasons per WD:N. TomT0m (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
To link with the book/series you use present in work (P1441), not from fictional universe (P1080) and you don't necessarily need a fictional universe item. And when you need it (several different works sharing the same universe for example), you create it. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Join conversation at Property_talk:P144#Splitting_.22adapted_from.22_from_this_propertyEdit

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

Multiple timelinesEdit

The Star Trek multiverse (Q18043309) consists of three main timelines Prime Universe (Q47163964), Mirror Universe (Q674612), Kelvin Timeline (Q47164023) and several others that are less relevant.

how should we express in which of these timelines a narrative is set. I used narrative location (P840) but that should be used for locations. and different works can be set at the same location, but in different timelines and I don't like the idea of creating fictional locations for each timeline. I thought narrative location should be qualified with the timeline and I considered set in period (P2408) and that sounds appropriate at first, but then again, thats meant time periods.

I can't think of anther fictional universe that has multiple timelines (Universe of The Legend of Zelda (Q1399781)?) so a new property is not justified. Is there a more general property we could use? any ideas? --Shisma (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shisma: Could takes place in fictional universe (P1434) be an option for works? There remains the question how to qualify a certain statement to the timeline it applies to (like I've seen at Spock (Q16341)Q16341#P746). To use takes place in fictional universe (P1434) as a qualifier here seems odd to me. Maybe one could simply use of (P642). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I like the idea of simply using of (P642) in combination with a timeline. There should maybe be a timeline class --Shisma (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Items that are not only fictional universesEdit

Running this query I come across a few problems. here is one:

Warcraft series (Q815739)
instance of (P31)
fictional universe (Q559618)
video game series (Q7058673)

A thing cannot be a fictional universe and something else. Statements like Warcraft series (Q815739) is fictional universe (Q559618) that runs on Microsoft Windows (Q1406) make no sense what so ever 😅. Let us resolve all those issues. Can someone query for things that are not only fictional universes? --Loominade (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a query giving all fictional universes that are also instances of something else: query  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valentina.Anitnelav (talk • contribs).
I agree. In that particular case, we'd need 3 different items IMO: one for the video game series (Q7058673), one for the fictional universe (Q559618) that the games and related works take place in, as well as one for the media franchise (Q196600) which would include games, books, comics, the movie, etc. --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And now I see that we already have an item for the franchise: Warcraft (Q6156907). And we have World of Warcraft universe (Q26181639). I'm not too familiar with Warcraft, but I thought the content of World of Warcraft was part of the overall Warcraft lore. And we have places in Warcraft (Q849468), which also has the statements instance of (P31) fictional universe (Q559618) part of (P361) World of Warcraft universe (Q26181639) and from fictional universe (P1080) Warcraft series (Q815739). World of Warcraft universe (Q26181639) on the other hand also has the circular statement part of (P361) places in Warcraft (Q849468). That looks pretty chaotic. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mythologies and Fictional UniversesEdit

is there anyone here who thinks these should be considered as fictional universes, linked in from fictional universe (P1080)? Lets make a new property, along the lines of from mythical canon and takes place in mythical canon. Thoughts?--Loominade (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Loominade: According to the constraints from fictional universe (P1080) can be used for mythologies, too, but the label does not express it and it is removed from mythical entities quite often (which I understand). There is a proposal on Property_talk:P1080 by Pharos to relabel from fictional universe (P1080) to be more inclusive, but this would need to be done in all languages (this would take some time and would probably cause some confusion). Maybe a new property would be better. We could name it "from mythical canon", like you proposed, but we could also name it (more inclusive) "from story cycle", like proposed by Pharos (from fictional universe (P1080) could be a subproperty of this new property, then). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Fictional universes".