User talk:Eulenspiegel1

Welcome to Wikidata, Eulenspiegel1!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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!

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC).

Fictional characters vs. mythical characters

Hello Eulenspiegel1, I think it's best to stop "discussing" in edit summaries and instead starting to discuss here. To get back to your example: Loki is a trickster (and I actually dislike to use P31 here, as it is rather a narrative role). But Loki is also a mythical character. As you had a look at Talk:Q4271324 you will have noticed that in this discussion there was a preference to seperate mythical entities from fictional ones. By making trickster (Q902180), which is used as P31-value on mythical characters, a subclass of fictional character you blur these boundaries. Any reason why you think this is bad? At best with references from the relevant areas of study? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There are three sorts of persons:

1. Persons who real exist
2. Persons who do not real exist
3. Persons who we don't know if they real exist

Literary characters and mythical characters are both characters who do not real exist. If something is not real, we call it fictional.

At Talk:Q4271324 was written, that there is no author. That's in two ways wrong:

1. We do not need an author for fictional entities. If something is not real, it's fictional even without author. Maybe he mixed "literary character" and "fictional character".

2. Mythical characters have authors. Probably it's not only one author but many authors. And in most cases we don't know the author. Yet, there exists some people who created this mythical character. And these people are the authors of the mythical character.

--Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That is actually not the striking difference between mythical and fictional characters. To copy my comment from this talk: "Fictional characters are characters from a work of fiction, with a certain author/creator. Those are entities not claimed to exist. Mythical entities are from traditions. They don't have a particular author/creator and belong to the worldview of a culture, where they appear with a certain claim of truth."

The differentiation in three classes (as you did it) is one that is reaonable in some cases, but not helpful in others (especially not in the study of myth and folklore and different cultures and societies). There is a difference between mythical and fictional characters in their epistemic and normative role. So it happens that mythical entity (Q24334685) is a subclass of hypothetical object (because they are assumed by the cultures they appear in). I'm not sure if you would call obsolete scientific theories "fictional scientific theories". -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A small ad to my last entry:

A problem can be that some mythical and even some literary characters are not fictional: For example, Jesus (Q302) is a mythical character. Yet, there are evidences that he really lived as described in historical Jesus (Q51666).

The some problems are with literary characters: Till Eulenspiegel (Q164083) is a literary character but there are also some minor evidences that he possible real lived. Thus, I am thinking about giving him "instance of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568)".

Now the answer to your response:

The following would be correct: "Literary characters are characters from a work of fiction, with an author/creator. Those are entities not claimed to exist."

For fictional characters this is not true. Fictional characters do not need a ceratin author/creator. Fictional characters can also be claimed to exist.

There might be a difference between mythical and literary characters. Yet, both are in most times fictional. Of course, there are in both cases exceptions: The mythical character Jesus (Q302) and the literary character Till Eulenspiegel (Q164083) are possibly not fictional. Yet, most of the mythical and the literary characters are fictional.

An obsolete scientific theory is more like a dead character. A dead character is an instance of character not an instance of fictional character. The same is with an obsolete scientific theory. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On which source do you base those claims: ""Literary characters are characters from a work of fiction"/"Fictional characters do not need a ceratin author/creator. Fictional characters can also be claimed to exist."? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On which source do you base those claims: "Fictional characters are characters from a work of fiction, with a certain author/creator. Those are entities not claimed to exist." --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, to have three:

1) the account of the encyclopedia britannica (which focuses on the genre of fiction in literature), Fiction is "created from the imagination, not presented as fact" [1]. If the genre of Fiction is distinguished by not presenting things as facts, how should it claim its characters to exist?

2) In "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives" William Bascom draws a distinction between folktales and myths by drawing on the concept of fiction: "Folktales are prose narratives which are regarded as fiction. They are not considered as dogma or history, they may or may not have happened, and they are not to be taken seriously.", in contrast to myth: "Myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are accepted on faith; they are taught to be believed; and they can be cited as authority in answer to ignorance, doubt, or disbelief."

3) Margarete Bruun Vaage describes an orthodox view on fiction vs. non-fiction as the following: "The orthodox view in analytical film theory is that the difference between fiction and nonfiction is anchored in communicative practice. Whereas the creator of nonfiction can be seen as asserting something as true, the creator of fiction merely asks of its spectators that they imagine the work’s content." This article is interesting as it takes this view as oversimplifying things, but in the end she enhances this basic theory: "The solution is not to dismiss the basic theory, but to make finer distinctions. I argue that one difference between prototypical nonfiction and social realist fiction is that nonfiction asserts that its contents (characters and events) are true as tokens, e.g., this person experienced this. As fiction, a work of social realism calls for imagining. However, such a work also asserts that its contents are true as types, e.g., these types of persons experience these types of events.". So no existence-claims here, either.

Btw: fiction (Q8253) is not the same as a hoax (Q190084) or fake news (Q28549308), even though the word "fiction" is used sometimes in everyday communication to refer to those kinds of things. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Cambridge dictionary there are two meanings of fictional : One meaning is a type of book. The other meaning is "a false report or statement that you pretend is true".

In Collins dictionary there are also several meanings of fiction: One is a type of book but another is for example "A statement or account that is fiction is not true."

In Chinese Theories of Fiction the author distinguish literary fiction and metaphysical fiction. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Instance of a metaclass

Hi. About Special:Diff/1274743893. While class can be an instance of a metaclass, plant structure (Q20011319) in your classification scheme isn't a metaclass. It's a class of physical objects (not classes) and leaf (Q33971) is already set as a subclass of its subclass. E.g. compare with watercraft type (Q16335899), a true metaclass. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:DD19:6DF9:4F6E:2E49 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. "Plant structure" is subclass of "anatomical structure" which was a "first-order metaclass" until you deleted it, today: [2]

I don't think that "plant structure" (or "anatomical structure") is a class of physical objects: For example, I take two leafs of the same tree. These are different leafs, because they are different instances of the class "leaf".

Yet, are these two leafs also different plant structures? First of all, I wouldn't say, that the two leafs are plant structures. I suggest, they have a plant structure. And the two leafs of the same tree have both the same plant structure. Thus, they cannot be two different instances of plant structure. Thus, "leaf" as physical object is no instance of "plant structure". Nevertheless, "leaf" as class is an instance of "plant structure". --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we can use plant structure in sense that it's a quality of a plant (not its part), but that's not how plant structure (Q20011319) is currently defined by its use and its properties. Its labels in serveral other languages also more explicitly refer to plant part. If item was about quality of a plant, then we might say that it has parts like leaf structure (also as quality), and rather it would have no instances at all.

Yes, two leaves of the same (individual) tree are instances of the class "leaf". As these two leaves are physical objects, then wouldn't you say that "leaf" is a class of physical objects? leaf (Q33971) currently is in subclass tree of physical object (Q223557) and concrete object (Q4406616). While metaclasses are supposed to be in a different subclass tree, the one of class (Q5127848) and abstract entity (Q7184903). anatomical structure (Q4936952) is not in the latter subclass and hence it isn't a metaclass either (I corrected it, so that it wouldn't cause further confusion). leaf (Q33971) on the other hand is currently set as something that at the same time is a subclass and instance of physical object, which in any case is a contradiction. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1469:E615:462A:9D01 17:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that we hav currently a contradiction because "leaf" is currently an instance and a subclass of "plant structure".

I also agree with you, that we should cancel this contradiction.

Yet, there are two ways of canceling this contradiction

1. delete "leaf (Q33971) is instance of plant structure (Q20011319)"
2. delete "plant organ (Q24060707) is subclass of plant structure (Q20011319)"

I suggest to delete the subclass entry: If you have two different organs of the same type, these are two different instances of organ. Yet, they are not different structures.

I would suggest the two trees:

leaf tree: leaf (Q33971) --> plant organ (Q24060707) --> organ (Q712378) --> biological component (Q28845870) --> component (Q1310239)

structure tree: plant structure (Q20011319) --> biological structure (Q55568967) --> structure (Q6671777)

--Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this still wouldn't add up quite. If structure should be understood as "overall form or organization" (wikt:structure#Noun, 3rd sense), which you suggest, then this would refer to a quality of a plant part, not the plant part itself, and as such leaf as a class for plant part would be neither its instance nor subclass. If plant part or leaf is a (plant) structure then structure means "cohesive whole built up of distinct parts" (1s sense). In the latter sense, as long as two leaves are different leaf instances, then they are also different structures. The latter sense most likely is intended for plant structure (Q20011319). Otherwise it wouldn't be used as a classification unit for plant parts, and also English alias and litteral meaning of label in most other languages wouldn't be "plant part".

The latter example tree isn't sufficient for a metaclass since true metaclass is something that is a subclass of class (Q5127848) or a like, instead. This example tree, even if not for a metaclass, is a little flawd because biological structure (Q55568967) and structure (Q6671777) define structure differently, first one is "matter organized" and second one is "arrangement and organization", i.e. more or less 1st and 3rd sense mentioned above. So one doesn't fit well as a subclass of another. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C1AE:AF2F:2566:6B9B 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, you're right and "plant structure" is not a metaclass. Yet, I still think, leaf is neither a subclass of "plant structure". Nevertheless, I reverted my revert. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. In relation to metaclasses, yesterday I noticed that a few months ago you set metaclass taxon (Q16521) as subclass of group of living things (Q16334298). The latter however presumably also isn't intended as a metaclass. This causes some confusion, see Talk:Q16334298. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:84B0:5649:2C94:B94C 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)