Property talk:P8345

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

media franchise
this creative work belongs to this media franchise
Representsmedia franchise (Q196600)
Data typeItem
Domainwork (Q386724), virtual band (Q3736859), fictional entity (Q14897293), class of fictional entities (Q15831596), cast (Q15267437), amusement park (Q194195) or product line (Q110375331)
ExampleSuper Mario Bros. (Q11168) → Mario (Q4803535)
Super Mario Bros. (Q535550) → Mario (Q4803535)
Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 (Q2712053) → Dragon Ball (Q2020)
Dragon Ball GT (Q735669) → Dragon Ball (Q2020)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P8345 (Q124317758)
See alsofrom narrative universe (P1080), takes place in fictional universe (P1434)
Lists
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Total40,348
Main statement40,19699.6% of uses
Qualifier1520.4% of uses
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Type Q386724, Q3736859, Q14897293, Q15831596, Q15267437, Q194195, Q110375331, SPARQL
Value type “media franchise (Q196600), media mix (Q18591554)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value media franchise (Q196600), media mix (Q18591554) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Value type Q196600, Q18591554, SPARQL
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): human (Q5)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
None of Final Fantasy (Q99416119): value must not be any of the specified items.
Replacement property:
Replacement values: Final Fantasy (Q12391356) (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#none of, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase MediaInfo (Q59712033), Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Entity types
Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Scope, SPARQL
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): version, edition or translation (Q3331189)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): fictional universe (Q559618)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
None of Grand Theft Auto (Q132730): value must not be any of the specified items.
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8345#none of, SPARQL
Value Pokémon video games (Q1079748) will be automatically replaced to value Pokémon (Q864).
Testing: TODO list
Value Pokémon (Q239937) will be automatically replaced to value Pokémon (Q864).
Testing: TODO list
Value CSI universe (Q110918424) will be automatically replaced to value CSI (Q264198).
Testing: TODO list
If property value equals to Attack on Titan (Q106712785) then claim takes place in fictional universe (P1434) = Attack on Titan universe (Q123784069) will be created automatically.
Testing: TODO list

Vague scope[edit]

Please for what type of items should this property be used? For characters and other in-world entities? For books/films/other works? What to do if some item is about fictional universe and franchise simultaneously? Or a game series and franchise? --Infovarius (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it’s filed as Wikidata property related to creative works (Q18618644) and has a -property constraint (P2302)subject type constraint (Q21503250)relation (P2309)instance or subclass of (Q30208840)class (P2308)creative work (Q17537576)… What’s vague about that? Jean-Fred (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an item mixes franchise, fictional universe and film/book/game/etc. series, it should probably be divided into separate properties. I think in most cases, someone simply added additional instance of (P31) statements to an existing franchise/universe/series item because they weren't aware that these concepts need separate items. Of course there are probably lots of cases where we only have items about the films/games/books in the series and nothing else from that franchise, in which case the need for a separate franchise item isn't quite as obvious.
As to the scope, I think fictional entities should indeed get a franchise statement. I think Jean-Fred's property proposal showed that other properties aren't all that well suited for this kind of statement. But there are other cases which we might want to discuss. For example, I think both individual books/games/films and the respective book/game/film series should get franchise statements. But I've hesitated to add the statement to seasons and individual episodes of television series. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be some cases where it’s fine to have items with both instance of (P31)=fictional universe and media franchise − although I can’t think of an example.
Re: seasons and episodes: that’s a very good point, I did not think of it. I agree with you that the franchise on an individual TV series episode feels a bit weird. My first though was, let’s not add it if it’s part part of (P361) another work which already has the franchise statement − and then remembered that I certainly added it to both games and game series so that rule of thumb does not really work… Jean-Fred (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it’s filed as Wikidata property related to creative works (Q18618644) and has a -property constraint (P2302)subject type constraint (Q21503250)relation (P2309)instance or subclass of (Q30208840)class (P2308)creative work (Q17537576)… What’s vague about that?" That's quite different from how it's currently used. --Trade (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote that, this was not the case − fairly sure the property was (almost) exclusively used on works, and not on in-universe entities (like characters − which I assume is what you hint at) :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Kam, you were the closest to answer my question. I'll try to conclude. We can(should) add P8345 to characters and books/films/works and games series and fictional universe itself and probably to individual seasons and episodes. --Infovarius (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infovarius: I see now that my answer was curt and somewhat unhelpful, apologies − I guess I got a bit annoyed because I spent hours penning Wikidata:Property_proposal/media_franchise, and while of course it may not have been perfect (I definitely had not foreseen the TV episode situation for example), I did believe that the initial scope was clear enough to not be deemed "vague". Sorry about that. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of any online database that uses "franchise" to describe fictional characters and entities. --Trade (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there aren't all that many online databases focusing on characters to begin with (if we leave Fandom/Wikia wikis aside, which vary wily in quality, structure and scope). en:Template:Infobox character does have a "franchise" parameter, which makes this property useful to populate that field in the infobox.
Giant Bomb (Q1657282) apparently only lists the first appearance in its infobox and then has a long list of all appearances - so they don't seem to have a way of connecting characters to the respective franchises that they are part of. I.e. you can't tell just from the info in the infobox that Pikachu is part of the Pokemon franchise or that Luke Skywalker is a Star Wars character. Comic Vine (Q24688914) lists characters' first appearances and the "publisher". I guess this makes sense for a site focused on comic books, where publishers like DC/Marvel/etc. usually have big, shared universes where characters may appear anywhere. Though it doesn't seem to work too well for characters from other media that appeared in publications by several publishers. Sites like marvel.com (Q24258919) or Star Wars Databank (Q3968343) are solely focused on their own franchises anyways, so there's no need to state the obvious in their entries.
It also seems that other databases also don't have structured information about the fictional universes/continuities/canons that the characters/entities are a part of. But I think that from narrative universe (P1080) is valuable data we should keep, even if other databases don't store the same information. Just like this property. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:42,13 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any example where a character's fictional universe belongs to a different media franchise than the character?
"where publishers like DC/Marvel/etc. usually have big, shared universes where characters may appear anywhere." you forgog to menion the numerous Marvel "subuniverses"
So how many media franchises do you propose we make for DC, Marvel, Disney, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon?--Trade (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure about what kind of data model you are argueing for. Do I understand you correctly that you mean media franchise (P8345) is unnecessary on items of fictional entities if they have a from narrative universe (P1080) statement and that universe item already has a media franchise (P8345) statement?
As to the number of potential franchises: I don't know, but I'd say we go with whatever external sources define as franchises. These things aren't an exact science and sometimes franchises can overlap or be part of a bigger franchise. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with adding media franchise (P8345) to fictional entities, regardless of whether they have from narrative universe (P1080): if I want to get all Gundam (Q732120) characters, jumping through Cosmic Era (Q2755142) and the likes is just a hassle. Also, while I see the point of fictional universes for say, Harry Potter or Dune, or Lord of the Rings, I see little point in creating such universe items for say, "James Bond" or "Hitman" or "Splinter Cell" − any franchise where there is not that much to say about ("it’s a universe more or less like ours") (but I know I’m somewhat biased against this universe concept, as I hinted in the original proposal). Jean-Fred (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9/10 times the media franchise would be of roughly the same value as the fictional universe (Harry Potter belongs to the Hary Potter franchise and the Harry Potter universe). My point was that using franchise on fictional characters would be of limited usefulness. --Trade (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if assuming there is such a fictional universe item, which I don’t think is the case right now − nor do I believe there necessarily should be: consistent with en:Fictional_universe#Universe_vs_setting, not every setting can be considered a fictional universe. Also, numbers-wise, there are currently 417 instances of fictional universe (Q559618) (even though there arguably has been work on this since at least 2014, when from narrative universe (P1080) ; while there are 491 media franchise (Q196600).
So while I do see your point and agree there might be some/a lot of overlap, I think that it’s better to keep the modeling consistent.
Jean-Fred (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, numbers-wise, there are currently 417 instances of fictional universe (Q559618) (even though there arguably has been work on this since at least 2014, when from narrative universe (P1080)" It would seem that the people using this property are only interested in writing about a few selected universes. Can't say that's surprising.--Trade (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Videogame List (Q64447538) appears to − see https://www.uvlist.net/characters/ where each character belongs to a Group, which sometimes maps to franchises more than to series.
Also, as I had written in Wikidata:Property proposal/media franchise, Wikidata does implicitly, with items like Mario franchise character (Q33093124), Q29006203 or Q17478752. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

I believe we need some better guidelines for what does and does not count as a media franchise

  • Does a video game with a digital-only soundtrack album release count? (Our Darker Purpose)
  • Does a television show with multiple physical album release count? (Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt)
  • Does a video game series with a tie-in comic series count? (Carmageddon & Call of Duty)

I'm sure others can think of more examples. --Trade (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric:--Trade (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media franchise isn't a term with an exact definition that we can use to verify if something is a franchise or not. When in doubt, it would probably be best to check whether any external sources call it a franchise. Allthough I guess we don't have to be too strict, since it's just a statement we use to state that works belong together. But one work plus a accompanying soundtrack or novelization seems a bit low. Personally, I wouldn't create items for "franchises" with less than, say, eight or ten works/things or so. --Kam Solusar (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it at what point do you think something should be considered a video game series? --Trade (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd say usually 3 games or more. Two games don't really seem like a series to me, though there are probably some game databases that have entries for some series with just 2 games. When there's only two games, or one game plus an addon, remaster, different version etc., I'd only create an item for a series if there's already an external ID to justify it. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree − I’ve been guilty of creating series items quite liberally, including for just two games (like “Foobar” and “Foobar 2”) and I now start to regret this. We have follows (P155)/followed by (P156) and they’re probably fine to use without a series item.
I would lean towards opposing a series item for a game + a remaster (“Foobar” & “Foobar Remastered”) ; and for a game + a DLC − the relationship between the two can also just be modeled directly (using, respectively, based on (P144) and our upcoming “expansion of”) without needing what boils down to a “container item”.
And that’s why I’d start being a bit wary of using external IDs to justify these series items: often enough, it seems that the sole reason for it is that their data model just does not allow relationships between games. Take MobyGames: they have no way to link together a game and its DLC, or a game and its remaster, or a game and its sequel ; so they fall back to grouping them (using the game group entity). It’s not only MobyGames: Gamekult and Giant-Bomb only have their “Franchise“ object too). Surprisingly, I have found GameFAQ more advanced there: they are able to express that The Only Traitor (Q91333442)expansion forThe Final Station (Q40888481) or Night Trap - 25th Anniversary Edition (Q77265302)remaster forNight Trap (Q1323428), and they don’t need create a franchise “container entry” to group them − while Mobygames has groups `night-trap-series` and `final-station-series` which make little sense to me.
Jean-Fred (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion in lists of multimedia franchises (Q17089095) seem reasonable enough to just reuse them for now: a franchise must have works in at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate works in at least two of those forms of media.
And indeed, we should heed external sources.
It is indeed about grouping works together ; but I would say that is not necessary when these works are all linked together anyhow: a soundtrack album and the work via soundtrack release (P406) ; a tie-in comic with based on (P144)/plot expanded in (P5940), etc.
Jean-Fred (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The item you listed is a list of multimedia franchises that are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. As WD have different notability criteria from WP we should be less strict about it. --Trade (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on SCP (Q68466327) and Slender (Q68468406)?@Jean-Frédéric:--Trade (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P8345&oldid=2029407073"