User talk:Croxley

Fictional -> Fictitious
Can you explain to me why you changed my article to List of fictitious plays please? The majority of articles related to it are titled "fictional", not "fictitious", with the exception of List of fictitious films. If you check the latter's talk page you will see that I asked why it is the odd one out and if it should be changed, but have no answer at the current time. I'm reverting your changes for the time being, because over 100 articles can't be wrong. Tartan 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind explaining why the title was changed, but did you look at the edit summary? I already explained it there, though I'll go into more detail if it wasn't clear enough.


 * Most plays are works of fiction, so naming it List of fictional plays is ambiguous and means that any fictional play might be included. That means with your previous title List of fictional plays, A Midsummer Night's Dream might be added to the list, along with the rest of Shakespeare's plays. It could also be confusing to a Wikipedia user, and avoiding ambiguity is always a good idea.


 * It's for exactly this reason that List of fictitious films is so named, although these lists are possibly the only exceptions. These reasons generally do not apply to other articles, such as List of fictional islands, because islands are not works of fiction, so no distinction needs to be made. Croxley 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand that, but take List of fictional books, List of fictional musical works, List of fictional newspapers, or a lot of other items on List of fictional things in general. Taking one article and changing it before discussing it means that a minority are named out of convention and when the time comes to change them back to "fictional" again the move isn't as easy because of the page existing already as a redirect (the talk page and history has to be moved too). Tartan 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may butt in to offer a third opinion, I agree with Croxley on this issue. You cite books, musical works, and newspapers as things that are properly described as "fictional".  In general, musical works and newspapers would be classified as "non-fiction", so a "made up" example would simply be fictional (although I think fictitious would also be correct).  In the case of books, the adjective is used to separate it from non-fiction books.  However a non-existent book could be considered "fictitious" even if the title made it appear as non-fiction: The Seven Habits of Marginally Effective People.  In the case of films (and plays) we are making the distinction between fiction (non-factual) and fictitious (made up).  Death of a Salesman is fictional, but it is real in the sense that it is published and performed.  La Cocina is fictitious since George Costanza made it up completely to bolster his claims of writing experience.  Perhaps fictitious could be changed to non-existent? Hoof Hearted 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-existant would be too wide. I could make up a title here and now and it would be a non-existant film. I'm not arguing that the title itself is wrong, more that the move without discussion was. I don't see why the fictional books list wouldn't be just the same as film and plays and I don't understand your argument (confused with a cold at the moment). The problem with newspapers and musical works, and a whole lot of other items such as List of fictional online services, is that changing one or two from the list of fictional things throws it out of convention. By all means, if you want to change more of the lists as for fictitious objects if you like, but I think chaning one out of the blue is a bit odd. Tartan 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of William Monahan
Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bickerton (bicycle)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bickerton (bicycle), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)