Fictional Universes

Ellery Queen: Split real from fictional

2008-05-16T08:44:56.0012Z

"[B]oth a fictional character and a pseudonym used by two American cousins"? Oh my. Split please.

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-14T19:05:50.0000Z

duck1123's types sort of do this but their names have are somewhat subjective (e.g., "primary") and therefore not as useful as they could be. Also see the third linked Batman topic. That redundant topic has an "Alternate persona" type that contains info that should really be linked to the first Batman topic but can't because that one is attributed with Bruce Wayne characteristics.

I prefer the way that Barbara Gordon is described compared to the way that Batman is described. For the most part, Barbara Gordon is a character that is distinct from Catwoman and Oracle but linked to them through alternate identies. I would just rename "Primary identity" to "Identity".

Primary identity is important in terms of who is most commonly associated with the other identity. There should be a way to distinquish that Bruce Wayne is the primary identity of Batman and not Jean-Paul Valley. However, that info may be better pulled from the data in terms of # of story lines or similar value. For example, who is the primary identity of Witchblade throughout history?

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-14T17:33:33.0007Z

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "an identity type with an alter ego property that links multiple identities" essentially what duck1123's types do?

One "primary identity" with multiple superhero identities seems pretty straightforward: see Barbara Gordon. But the more complicated issue is when one superhero identity is assumed by multiple people. Is the Batman of "Batman Beyond" (Bruce Wayne's son in that continuity) really the same as the original Batman? And is either the same as the Batman persona assumed by Jean-Paul Valley while Batman/Wayne was temporarily out of commission?

The question of alternate-Earth Batmen seems more straightforward -- different characters with different alternate identities. So the alternate Batmen would have alternate identies of Earth-One Bruce Wayne and Earth-Two Bruce Wayne as appropriate.

I agree that pseudonyms are different than this. I think Faye's suggestion was simply that common use should determine the topic name, which I think is the right answer if we use the simpler model. But I'm inclined toward the alteregos model if we think it can work.

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-14T03:07:13.0000Z

IMO, all egos deserve their own topic pages. How about something like an identity type with an alter ego property that links multiple identities? "Primary identity" would then be determined through other properties and the purpose of the declaration. This would allow Batman to have properties that are distinct from those of Bruce Wayne but they are still linked through an informative property.

Batman is a good case. Many of his story lines focus on whether Batman or Bruce Wayne is the primary identity. Both could be considered "secret identities". One is a caped crusader, the other is a public figure and never the 'tween shall meet (except in the Bat Cave, which is neutral ground).

I would not attribute Batman as the owner of Wayne Industries. Whether or not Bruce Wayne could be considered a superhero or detective is a matter of debate.

On the flip side, citizens of Gotham are curious about the secret identity of Batman and they don't know to be curious about a secret identity of Bruce Wayne.

Sting is an interesting case.. I don't really see Sting as an alter ego of Gordon Sumner. Sting is just a pseudonym/alias. Compare that situation to the acting roles that Sting/Sumner has played in film and television.

There are some superheroes that have multiple “primary identities”, and some “primary identities” have donned the costumes of multiple superheroes. Does the model handle those cases? It sort of does but not that well. See Batman vs Batman vs. Batman. Maybe addressing these situations could help refine the model.

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-14T00:31:47.0007Z

Personally (and I stress personally because it's by no means any kind of standard), I think it makes sense to use the better known name as the name of a topic. I apply this principle to real people as well as fictional characters. Additional names can always be added as topic aliases ("also known as").

There's a practical side to it. People are more likely to talk about (and search for) "Spider-Man", "Mark Twain", and "Sting" by these names, than by the lesser known "Peter Parker", " Samuel Clemens", and "Gordon Sumner". There's less information associated with the lesser known names. As an unfair example, I just searched for music on Amazon using "Gordon Sumner", and not surprisingly none of Sting's well-known albums showed up.

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-14T00:01:30.0000Z

I don't think there's a standard for this at all. User duck1123 has created a few types that can equate alter egos to each other. See his types Primary Identity and Alternate Persona.

Fictional Universes: Naming Fictional Characters

2008-05-13T23:38:27.0012Z

Is there a preference on what the main name of a Fictional Character topic such be? Does alias or superhero name take precedence over real name?

Ireland: Split and Merge

2008-05-08T23:35:06.0009Z

Ireland the island is no longer a country or an aircraft owner and the property values have been migrated to the Republic of Ireland, the country.

Mexico City: Merge?

2008-05-05T19:39:40.0005Z

According to WP, Mexico City and Distrito Federal are the same, and they have redirected Distrito Federal to Mexico City. We should merge.

Die Another Day: Film and book are different

2008-04-30T17:51:46.0005Z

Split the film from the book.

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2008-04-29T23:55:30.0000Z

Well there is somthing like that by user duck1123

Should it be a topic-based property or simply a text-based propert (there are some topics existing for some of the more well-known alter-IDs).

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2008-04-29T23:19:45.0007Z

How about an alter-ego property? This would come in handy for superheroes. Seems that this is being stuck on as an alias right now, but there are enough superheroes that it might as well be a property, right?

Firefly: Split into TV show and Fictional Universe

2008-04-27T08:18:26.0012Z

The fictional universe "firefly" is not the same as the tv program

William Gibson: MusicBrainz entity is the author

2008-04-24T19:57:58.0012Z

credited with the audiobooks for Neuromancer.

Discworld: Split series from setting

2008-04-24T19:07:27.0012Z

This topic should be reserved for the series of Discworld Books. Types relating to the universe of the series should be moved to http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f80000000004b8342

San Francisco: Merge

2008-04-18T21:01:04.0005Z

This topic has links associated with it, so it should be merged with the "official" San Francisco topic.

Captain Harlock: This needs to be split

2008-04-18T20:09:01.0012Z

This wikipedia-article-spawned topic contains information about the character, tv series, ovas, etc.

Superhuman speed: Ability or power?

2008-04-10T20:20:14.0000Z

"Characters having this power or ability" seems like a reasonable solution. I've changed the name; fortunately, in the new topic view, long names display pretty well.

I'd like to hear some more input on the "reason for ability" thing -- I understand what you're saying, but I just have the feeling that it will end up being a bit arbitrary. Care to ask the data-modeling list?

Superhuman speed: Ability or power?

2008-04-10T05:57:00.0000Z

"Powers or abilities" sounds good to me on each side of the reciprocation. For example "Character power or abilitity" is reciprocated with "Characters having this power or ability". The length is my only concern. It would be nice if there was a single word that summarized "powers or abilities".

I was thinking of "Reason for ability" as possibly a very general enumerated type that lists tags such as technology, magic, genetics, etc. Superman and his kin, for example, would probably fall under the category of genetics. Maybe that's not the best word but it could do for now. The tags could be further subdivided later on as more formal schema are developed. Similarly, "Exposure to the light of a yellow sun" might be better modeled as "Source of ability or power" = "Yellow sun radiation" or something similarly generic.

Superhuman speed: Ability or power?

2008-04-08T17:47:29.0007Z

I'm not sure. "Powers or abilities" seems like it sums up the intent of the property pretty succinctly. "Abilities" by itself is insufficient ("Oh look! Jimmy Olsen has the ability to tie his shoes!"), so we'd have to come up with something like "special abilities" (which sounds like some kind of politically-correct euphemism) or "superhuman abilities" (which is too specific), or something. I disagree that "powers" has a supernatural connotation, since "superpower" is a common way of describing a superhero's (or supervillian's) "special abilities".

Reason for abilitiy is an intersting idea, but what do you do with retcons? And I kind of think that the various explanations are going to be too various to make good topics. E.g., "exposure to the light of a yellow sun" (Superman and kin), "understanding of the Martian language" (Valentine Michael Smith), etc.

Superhuman speed: Ability or power?

2008-04-08T12:55:26.0012Z

For consistency, how about changing one of the property names so that they match? I vote for ability because it has less of a supernatural connotation. Ability is something a character can do regardless of its raison d'etre. Speaking of which, it may be interesting to add a "Reason for ability" property (e.g., technology, magic, genetics).

Fictional Universe: Created by?

2008-04-07T21:28:19.0007Z

Go wild. I've added the property and a new type, "fictional universe creator".

Fictional Universe: Created by?

2008-04-07T15:16:24.0012Z

+1 on this request ... I was playing around with the Dune Universe, and I thought it strange that we could not enter Frank Herbert as the creator of the fictional universe.

Fictional Universes: let's not conflate the work of fiction with it's universe...

2008-03-27T22:43:02.0007Z

It's a bit of a judgement call, well known (ie fictional works that have inspired a myriad of fan-fiction and/or authorized novelizations of cannon-based/non-canon storylines) tend to have a topic instance already in existence...Firefly might have an existing 'verse but I couldn't find that Brazil has one.

One could mark the Brazil topic for a split or better yet we can remove the fictional universe type association as it seems to have little value at this time.

The Simpsons topic is based originally upon a Wikipedia article that is about the TV show, history, cultural impact other media, etc...It almost is a universe topic, just heavily weighted towards the TV series aspect. It can easily be marked as a split, but as is, it could remain a multi-typed topic.

Fictional Universes: let's not conflate the work of fiction with it's universe...

2008-03-27T04:34:06.0007Z

I'm seeing this a lot (Firefly, The Simpsons, Brazil, etc). Are the statements above still valid, and should we have separate universes for all of these?

Fictional Setting: Fictional Location

2008-03-24T20:38:03.0000Z

This is a good point; "fictional setting" should include those fictional locations that aren't actually used as a setting, assuming that they are of sufficient interest for someone to enter, despite the fact that the name is "setting" rather than "location".

Fictional Setting: Fictional Location

2008-03-23T20:39:54.0007Z

I agree. One problem is that not all fictional locations are settings of stories. They may just be reffered to in fiction, for example.

Fictional Setting: Fictional Location

2007-12-12T18:06:25.0000Z

This was a deliberate choice on our part. We chose the name "fictional setting" because it's accurate for all places that appear in works of fiction -- San Francisco is the setting of many works of fiction, but it is not itself a fictional place. "Fictional location" would only be accurate for wholly imaginary places like Middle Earth or the planet Vulcan.

Fictional Setting: Fictional Location

2007-12-12T06:46:12.0005Z

I'd like to suggest that either you rename this type "fictional location" or at least set up an alias of that name.

The rationale for this is, all of the other "setting" types are called "location". This would keep the names consistent.

Fictional Universe: Locations vs Contains fictional settings

2007-11-29T19:54:46.0020Z

This appears to be a mistake. I'll hide the extra field and make sure that any data is moved over. Thanks for pointing this out.

Fictional Universe: Locations vs Contains fictional settings

2007-11-28T18:04:42.0005Z

What's the difference between Locations and Contains fictional settings? Both link to a fictional Setting.

Fictional Universes: Bridging reality and the fictional universe

2007-10-08T22:07:40.0007Z

Hmm, the property "Based on" expects a "Person Or Being In Fiction" in the fictional universe. Is the correct usage, then, to cotype a real Person in the People domain as a "Person Or Being in Fiction", which is then linked to the fictional character(s)?

Fictional Universes: Bridging reality and the fictional universe

2007-10-08T21:54:16.0000Z

Um, Faye? There is a "based on" property on "fictional character" for just such a purpose. We tried having it on fictional setting, but it turns out to be much more confusing, and even with documentation lead to more bad data than good.

Fictional Universes: Bridging reality and the fictional universe

2007-10-08T21:53:08.0007Z

So if I am following you correctly we should have a three John Nash's in the Freebase.

Real John Nash
Fictional John Nash (based on the real John Nash)
Performance John Nash (Performance by Russell Crowe, based on Fictional John Nash)

Fictional Universes: Bridging reality and the fictional universe

2007-10-06T00:09:38.0005Z

Many fictional characters (among other things) have real-world inspirations. This is especially true in biographies and "factions" (fact-based works of fiction). I'd like to see a property (like "Based on") that links the fictional character and the real world person, such as the main character in "A Beautiful Mind" to the real economist John Nash. The same can be said about Fictional Setting -- for example the fictional New York in "Gangs of New York" is based on the real New York City -- but I'd be happy just to see the property added to Fictional Character as a start.

Ireland: Split and Merge

2007-09-19T00:04:50.0005Z

This topic is for the island of Ireland, but has accrued the types "country" and "aircraft owner". These should be split onto a new topic which should then be merged with the topic for "Republic of Ireland".

Character Occupation: Why Two?

2007-08-15T21:01:33.0011Z

What is the difference between "Character Occupation" and "Fictional Job Title"?
This seems to be a pretty fine distinction for the "Fictional Universe" types,
which are otherwise fairly broad. I wonder if these two should be merged.

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2007-08-09T22:06:35.0007Z

(Sorry, meant to link to the other thread on historical persons.)

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2007-08-09T22:05:30.0007Z

In this thread, they even have the same problem for real historical persons: "Take "Person": where their dates of birth and death are not known, the dates in which a person flourished is standardly used to disambiguate them." They want to specify the birth date as "Qing Dynasty". This will probably be solved by splitting out a separate type (like Living Thing) that defines Birth Date and which the Person type includes. (Then you could mix in a different type that defines the different kind of birth date that you need.) The relevance to "contextual assertions" still applies. If you have a type for real Living Thing (with a birth date), will a user be afraid to use it on a fictional character? Right now, they should be afaid because it implies the character is real like all the other topics with the property. But the problem is solved if the character uses the same type as real things, but asserts the birth date in the context of the fictional universe (so it doesn't come up ono searches for "real people born on this date").

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2007-08-09T21:39:13.0007Z

I don't think this example would actually be solved by assertions, since regardless of whether we implement assertions or not, we still need a type to hold the data, and we currently lack a type that could be used for both real dates and dates in fictional calendar systems. It does seem like people want to enter this data for fictional characters, so it's worth trying to model a type we can use. A compound-value type with two properties might suffice -- one of type "datetime" for fictional characters in universes using the Gregorian calendar (AND who are born within the range 10,000 BCE - AD 9999), and one or two for all others. I have a bazillion things on my plate right now, but if I have time, I'll play around with it.

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2007-08-09T20:10:11.0000Z

This came up on a couple Fictional Character topics where someone wanted to give a birth date so they had to make the character a Person too, which is a no-no. To beat the same drum again: This problem is solved by allowing users to use the existing types for Person, Education, Politician, Author, etc. etc. on a fictional character - just put the assertion for the bithdate or "term of office as president" in the context of the fictional universe. In everyday life, people put properties, not only on topics, but on assertions. Quotation: "President Bush says there are WMDs but the French prime minister says there are not". Citation: "According to the US Census, the population is 100,000". Fictional assertions about real things "In the universe the 'Independence Day' movie, the Empire State Building is destroyed on July 2, 1996". (Wouldn't it be great to put this assertion on the real Empire State Building topic without having to create a separate type for 'Fictional Building' when we have to make a separate topic?)

Fictional Universes: LBJ's secret love child. Am I doing this right too?

2007-08-09T18:50:53.0007Z

(Try again...) I'll copy the example from my post below:

6. Who wrote the book Venus on the Half Shell? According to amazon.com, it was Kilgore Trout. But this is an attribution to a fictional character created by Kurt Vonnegut. It was really written by Philip José Farmer. How to handle this? Do we need a 'Fictional Book' type so that there can be a topic for the fictional version of the book? No. It's easy if we put the assertion that Kilgore Trout wrote the book in the context of Kurt Vonnegut's fictional universe. This requires Freebase to show properties on assertions, not just on topics.

Fictional Character: Add property: Date of Birth

2007-08-09T18:50:51.0007Z

The problem here is that lots of fictional characters exist in universes that don't use the Gregorian calendar, so we'd need to find a way to capture Gregorian dates, Stardates, Middle-Earth dates, years A.F. (After Ford), etc.

Fictional Universes: LBJ's secret love child. Am I doing this right too?

2007-08-09T18:49:09.0007Z

I'll copy the example from my amazon.com, it was Kilgore Trout. But this is an attribution to a fictional character created by Kurt Vonnegut. It was really written by Philip José Farmer. How to handle this? Do we need a 'Fictional Book' type so that there can be a topic for the fictional version of the book? No. It's easy if we put the assertion that Kilgore Trout wrote the book in the context of Kurt Vonnegut's fictional universe. This requires Freebase to show properties on assertions, not just on topics.

Fictional Universes: Fictional Musical Artist?

2007-08-09T18:42:41.0007Z

See my . I'll add a similar example along these lines that could be solved by making the context of an assertion visible.

6. Who wrote the book Venus on the Half Shell? According to amazon.com, it was Kilgore Trout. But attribution is to a fictional character created by Kurt Vonnegut. It was really written by Philip José Farmer. How to handle this? Do we need a 'Fictional Book' type so that there can be a topic for the fictional version of the book? No. It's easy if we put the assertion that Kilgore Trout wrote the book in the context of Kurt Vonnegut's fictional universe. This requires Freebase to show properties on assertions, not just on topics.

Fictional Universes: Fictional Musical Artist?

2007-08-09T18:14:22.0007Z

This is a complex issue, all right, and I'm sure that Ali G isn't the only such instance. I do think that this is a similar problem to the use of pseudonyms, although with an extra layer of complexity. It's valuable to know under what name a work was produced, both for cataloging-type applications, as well as if you just want to find a book on a shelf somewhere and need to know the name it was published under. But it's also important for people who don't know that a name is a pseudonym to be able to find works by that person published under other names. (Also, sometimes pseudonymous works are reprinted under the author's real name, and we need to be able to assert both that the work has been published under different names, and that it is the same work.) We haven't come remotely close to solving this issue, so any suggestions would be welcome.

Fictional Universes: Fictional Setting vs. (real) Location

2007-08-09T18:04:34.0007Z

We thought about this, and even had it modeled, but decided ultimately that the decrease in usability was greater than the value of the increased granularity of the model. One way that it works better than fictional character is that there's only one outgoing property from the actual location to the fictional works it appears in, whereas with characters, there was the possibility of an extremely large number of extra properties (books appears in, films appears in, operas appears in, comic strips appears in, etc.), some of which we properties specific to a certain domain (the type "comic book character" has several properties beyond just the works it appears in). With location, we were able to get around this by creating a separate type ("work of fiction") to use as a cotype when we want to indicate settings.

Fictional Universes: LBJ's secret love child. Am I doing this right too?

2007-08-09T17:59:47.0007Z

Thanks for the reply. I can easily come up with lots of examples because:
A. Every assertion has a source and set of assumptions. (Even well-meaning people will come to different conclusions)
B. Every assertion is true at some point in time, and can change later (because the world changes).
So, every assertion is in the context of a source and a time. Freebase can only skirt around this by assuming every assertion has only one universally greed source, and that circumstances will never change. This hampers the knowledge that Freebase can capture. Examples:

1. What is the population of India? Instead of making a special composite type for population, the simple assertion of 1.12 billion should be marked in the context of the source of the information and the time at which it was true.

2. In what viral group is this virus? That depends on what you assume is its genetic function. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions. Allow assertions for both group A and group B, but make the context of each assertion visible.

3. Who are the children of Thomas Jefferson? There are different claims of paternity. Instead of making a different topic for each "fictional" version of Thomas Jefferson, allow the assertion on the main Thomas Jefferson topic and cite the source of the claim on the assertion. (Currently, Freebase tragically obliterates all the footnotes in Wikipedia articles that cite sources, because a citation is a property of an assertion, not a topic. Freebase needs this mechanism.)

4. Who are graduates of Georgetown University? Apparently, one of them is Zoey Bartlet. Why? Because in the explosion of parallel types for Fictional Universes, no one has created a "Fictional Education" type, so the fictional character is made to be a real Person, so that it can be asserted that she went to the real Georgetown University. Is the solution to make a "fictional" Georgetown University and Education type to go with it? No. The assertion that Zoey Bartlet went to Georgetown University is in the context of the West Wing TV show.

5. How much does Oprah Winfrey weigh? Right now, the Weight property is a single value with no source or timestamp. But like all properties (height, religion, even gender nowadays), they change. Even the property Place of Birth can often legitimately be disputed. What does it mean if every month people go in and change the Weight property? Are they correcting a previously incorrect assertion, or are they correctly asserting that at the moment, according to this source this is true? (The Page History on a topic is not the place to track changes over time because it doesn't distinguish between actual changes to a value, and people just trying to correct mistakes.)

I'll stop there, but the list goes on.

Fictional Universes: LBJ's secret love child. Am I doing this right too?

2007-08-09T08:19:22.0007Z

Actually, I do think that the contextual assertion approach you've been suggesting could lead to a pretty solid, generic solution to some of these sorts of problems. It seems like it would also let you answer the "when was X a valid assertion?" question, as is being discussed on the Domains and Types page, to deal with historical countries and that sort of thing but without duplicating schema, as you said. It does add complexity to the core representation system, though, and would require a lot of changes to pretty much every component of Freebase, so it's really a question of whether this is such a common pattern for the things we want to represent that it's worth integrating. I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'd definitely like to see this idea discussed more... maybe we should think through some really specific, compelling examples of what this would enable.

Fictional Universes: LBJ's secret love child. Am I doing this right too?

2007-08-09T07:37:29.0007Z

Alexander, you say "The philosophically ideal solution is to create new topics for every fictional rendition (or interpretation or opinion...) of anything". But there is another technical, and much cleaner, solution used by other knowledge systems. Instead of creating new topics for everything, allow the user to specify a context for a particular assertion on a given topic. Right now on the Dog page, if you click the drop-down for Dogbert it has 'View', 'Edit' and 'Remove'. Imagine it also had 'Context', and you could specify the 'Dilbert Universe' as the context, right on the assertion itself, without creating a new topic. If Freebase had this feature, arguably we wouldn't need the explosion of duplicate types in the Fictional Universes domain at all. (I've posted this question already several times. I sure hope someone answers this time....)