![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me try once more. The Duke of Denver is indeed a fictional duke; because no dukes are works of fiction. (However, please note, the article calls his title "fictitious", which it is.) But calling Conan the Librarian a fictional film is fatally ambiguous with the valid sense in which Conan the Barbarian is fictional.
It is also true that fictitious can mean fictive. But it doesn't have to (nor does fictive imply concealment); the OED defines one meaning exactly as quoted above. The solution, however, is not to engage in barbarisms like fiction film. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: I've restored the discussion that took place last year about this request to this page, as the issues raised in that debate are entirely pertinent to the present request. The issues haven't changed in any way. There are two issues here: firstly, whether the current article " Fictional film" should be replaced with an article that says something to the effect that: "A fictional film is a film that only exists within the universe of another work of fiction"; secondly, whether " Fiction film" is a suitable synonym for the present article's definition of " Fictional film".
It has already been established that "fictional film" and "fiction film" are synonyms for "a cinematic work of fiction" in the critical literature. Both terms are in current usage and we have citations that prove that. The only question that remains is which is more appropriate. On grammatical terms alone, "fictional film" is clearly preferable, since "fiction" isn't an adjective (OED), but all things being equal they are both options. This is not the crux of the argument for or against the move.
The crux of the argument for or against turns on the first issue: if we move this article, we need a new article to replace it. This imagined new article would need to provide a definition that is sourced reputably that says something like: "A fictional film is a film that only exists in the world of another work of fiction".
The trouble is, just as with the last time he requested this move, Otto has failed to provide a source that offers this definition. Otto's argument insists on its truthiness: that it feels like that ought to be the definition - hence, in lieu of reputable sources, the appeal to "common sense". The category structure of Wikipedia is not a reputable source. The idea that the existing categories prove anything is patently nonsense. As I pointed out in the previous discussion on this last year: There was a debate over "Fictional plays" here, which failed to observe the use of the term "Fictional film" in cinema studies... which is a little strange in itself. The category of Fiction books to which Otto appeals was a contentious move itself. Otto claims that I "claim" not to have heard of that usage - what I actually claimed was that no bookstore was ungrammatical enough to have a section entitled "Ficton books", since I assume they are competent users of the English language.
I'm perfectly happy to approve the move and provide disambig notices for any potential confusion if Otto can provide a reputable source that provides the definition he's insisting on. Providing examples of usage within the context of discussions of films that are works of fiction misses the essential point - it is precisely that context that is at issue. If you are already talking about the universe of a film, then a film within that universe is a fictional film. If that context is not established, then it isn't: a fictional film is what this article already says it is, and is sourced to say so. DionysosProteus ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Provide the citation, Otto. Nowhere in previous discussions do you cite a definition. If you have, feel free to post it here! That is what Wikipedia requires for your opinion--on which the category structure to which you refer depends--to be accepted as a fact. Evidence. You keep moving the previous discussion to the Archive, yet it is plainly relevant to the present discussion. Perhaps your energy would be more constructively spent in locating a sourced definition that we can all examine for ourselves? I can only assume that you wish to avoid the arguments you failed to address there. You left a message on my talk page complaining of the absence of good faith, yet you forfeited that assumption when your discussion degenerated to petty name-calling in lieu of cited references that could substantiate your opinions. You wishing "Fictional film" would mean "a film that only exists in the world of another work of fiction" don't make it so. The definitions provided on the category pages--to which you yourself have provided no small contribution to the creation and maintenance thereof--lack a citation. Again, you have avoided the issue about the weblinks you provided previously - they are all usages that already assume the framing context of a fictional universe and none of them provide a definition. You need to provide a definition where some reputable source says it means what you say it does.
Your tortuous attempts to demonstrate that the OED is in error are entertaining but irrelevant. You claim "fiction books" is used in Barnes and Noble--well, let's have a photo that shows the sign that reads "Fiction books". A sign that says "Fiction" is a noun, silly. The "big damn deal" is about making sure that as a reference work Wikipedia is factually correct and uses the most appropriate terms.
I have no interest in how you or anyone else arranges the category structure for articles on non-existent works of art. That's a marginal and irrelevant issue for this proposed move. Descriptions of non-existent films mentioned in works of art are trivia at best. We are discussing the meaning of a fundamental critical term in film studies.
A "fictional film" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The onus is on you to provide a definition that says it does. That is the core issue of this proposal. Whether you wish to write a new article or to leave it to another to do so is irrelevant. Either it means what you claim or it doesn't. The way we decide that is via cited sources. Provide a source that defines the term and we're all happy.
I don't want the article moved because the term "Fictional film" has a current usage and precise definition within Film Studies. It has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes. I've provided sources that define the term. Your alternative exists only in your head and the categories of Wikipedia, neither of which count as evidence for our purposes. As I said before, your strained appeals to "common sense" and the "consensus" of opinion among wikipedia editors (and whether this was established two years or two days ago is also irrelevant) are appeals to truthiness, not facts. Cite a source that offers your definition and we can all agree on its validity. Fail to do that, and all we have is your prejudice and opinion. DionysosProteus ( talk) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Truly, I do not care in the least how you or anyone else chooses to categorize trivia. This proposal is not about the naming of categories but of this article. As far as the naming of categories in wikipedia goes, I have noticed that they are often resolved not on the basis of sourced references, but rather on a consensus of editorial opinion; it is unfortunate, in my opinion, that wikipedia does not apply the same rigorous standards to its naming of categories that it does to its articles. Any "disdain" I feel is reserved only for instances in which subjective opinions are passed off as established facts. But with regard to the proposal to move, the categories are irrelevant, as is my or anyone else's assessment of the degree of competence displayed by the general editorship. Wikipedia explicitly excludes 'editor consensus' as evidence for claims made in articles and your suggestion that the current naming of categories is "highly informative" to this proposal is nonsense; different criteria apply to definitions in articles and to category naming conventions, as I'm sure you know. With regards to the development of English language, why don't you give the OED a call and explain their mistake to them; record it, so we can all share the sound of their laughter. Clearly, you're the expert, not them, eh? I'm not "clinging" to anything--I'm applying the criteria established by Wikipedia. Perhaps you might consider doing the same?
You claim that "it also has a particular meaning outside the context of film theory. It has entered the lexicon as a recognized phrase meaning "film that exists only within a work of fiction", as evidenced by its use in any number of reliable sources". Yet no source that you have yet identified provides any such definition. If it does, kindly point to it so that we can all examine the definition for ourselves. Original research has no place in Wikipedia articles; unless you provide a definition, your proposal amounts to a request that your own opinion be allowed to pose as established fact. It isn't. Notice that all you need to do to address all of these concerns is to point to a single sentence somewhere in a reputable source that says something to the effect of "A fictional film is a film that..." If, as you claim, it has "entered the lexicon", this should present no difficulties whatsoever. But there's a reason you cannot provide a sourced definition: it doesn't mean what you think it does. I certainly don't "know it means what [you] say it means" - it is precisely that that I'm asking to be substantiated by a sourced definition. It is not "irrationality" to oppose the incorporation of opinion masquerading as fact. DionysosProteus ( talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The redirect Non-narrative film is currently being discussed at RfD. As part of that I have suggested merging that concept into this article (which would require only a little rewording, as it is presently mainly about the contrast). Your views and comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Non-narrative film would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to narrative film. ( non-admin closure) James ( talk/ contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Narrative film be
renamed and moved to
Fiction film.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Fictional film → Fiction film – A move was requested over 9 years ago, but no consensus was reached. I’m requesting this move because this article is clearly about “fiction films” that exist and are works of fiction, not “fictional films” that don’t exist. See also Category:Fictional films. 165.91.13.204 ( talk) 16:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me try once more. The Duke of Denver is indeed a fictional duke; because no dukes are works of fiction. (However, please note, the article calls his title "fictitious", which it is.) But calling Conan the Librarian a fictional film is fatally ambiguous with the valid sense in which Conan the Barbarian is fictional.
It is also true that fictitious can mean fictive. But it doesn't have to (nor does fictive imply concealment); the OED defines one meaning exactly as quoted above. The solution, however, is not to engage in barbarisms like fiction film. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: I've restored the discussion that took place last year about this request to this page, as the issues raised in that debate are entirely pertinent to the present request. The issues haven't changed in any way. There are two issues here: firstly, whether the current article " Fictional film" should be replaced with an article that says something to the effect that: "A fictional film is a film that only exists within the universe of another work of fiction"; secondly, whether " Fiction film" is a suitable synonym for the present article's definition of " Fictional film".
It has already been established that "fictional film" and "fiction film" are synonyms for "a cinematic work of fiction" in the critical literature. Both terms are in current usage and we have citations that prove that. The only question that remains is which is more appropriate. On grammatical terms alone, "fictional film" is clearly preferable, since "fiction" isn't an adjective (OED), but all things being equal they are both options. This is not the crux of the argument for or against the move.
The crux of the argument for or against turns on the first issue: if we move this article, we need a new article to replace it. This imagined new article would need to provide a definition that is sourced reputably that says something like: "A fictional film is a film that only exists in the world of another work of fiction".
The trouble is, just as with the last time he requested this move, Otto has failed to provide a source that offers this definition. Otto's argument insists on its truthiness: that it feels like that ought to be the definition - hence, in lieu of reputable sources, the appeal to "common sense". The category structure of Wikipedia is not a reputable source. The idea that the existing categories prove anything is patently nonsense. As I pointed out in the previous discussion on this last year: There was a debate over "Fictional plays" here, which failed to observe the use of the term "Fictional film" in cinema studies... which is a little strange in itself. The category of Fiction books to which Otto appeals was a contentious move itself. Otto claims that I "claim" not to have heard of that usage - what I actually claimed was that no bookstore was ungrammatical enough to have a section entitled "Ficton books", since I assume they are competent users of the English language.
I'm perfectly happy to approve the move and provide disambig notices for any potential confusion if Otto can provide a reputable source that provides the definition he's insisting on. Providing examples of usage within the context of discussions of films that are works of fiction misses the essential point - it is precisely that context that is at issue. If you are already talking about the universe of a film, then a film within that universe is a fictional film. If that context is not established, then it isn't: a fictional film is what this article already says it is, and is sourced to say so. DionysosProteus ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Provide the citation, Otto. Nowhere in previous discussions do you cite a definition. If you have, feel free to post it here! That is what Wikipedia requires for your opinion--on which the category structure to which you refer depends--to be accepted as a fact. Evidence. You keep moving the previous discussion to the Archive, yet it is plainly relevant to the present discussion. Perhaps your energy would be more constructively spent in locating a sourced definition that we can all examine for ourselves? I can only assume that you wish to avoid the arguments you failed to address there. You left a message on my talk page complaining of the absence of good faith, yet you forfeited that assumption when your discussion degenerated to petty name-calling in lieu of cited references that could substantiate your opinions. You wishing "Fictional film" would mean "a film that only exists in the world of another work of fiction" don't make it so. The definitions provided on the category pages--to which you yourself have provided no small contribution to the creation and maintenance thereof--lack a citation. Again, you have avoided the issue about the weblinks you provided previously - they are all usages that already assume the framing context of a fictional universe and none of them provide a definition. You need to provide a definition where some reputable source says it means what you say it does.
Your tortuous attempts to demonstrate that the OED is in error are entertaining but irrelevant. You claim "fiction books" is used in Barnes and Noble--well, let's have a photo that shows the sign that reads "Fiction books". A sign that says "Fiction" is a noun, silly. The "big damn deal" is about making sure that as a reference work Wikipedia is factually correct and uses the most appropriate terms.
I have no interest in how you or anyone else arranges the category structure for articles on non-existent works of art. That's a marginal and irrelevant issue for this proposed move. Descriptions of non-existent films mentioned in works of art are trivia at best. We are discussing the meaning of a fundamental critical term in film studies.
A "fictional film" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The onus is on you to provide a definition that says it does. That is the core issue of this proposal. Whether you wish to write a new article or to leave it to another to do so is irrelevant. Either it means what you claim or it doesn't. The way we decide that is via cited sources. Provide a source that defines the term and we're all happy.
I don't want the article moved because the term "Fictional film" has a current usage and precise definition within Film Studies. It has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes. I've provided sources that define the term. Your alternative exists only in your head and the categories of Wikipedia, neither of which count as evidence for our purposes. As I said before, your strained appeals to "common sense" and the "consensus" of opinion among wikipedia editors (and whether this was established two years or two days ago is also irrelevant) are appeals to truthiness, not facts. Cite a source that offers your definition and we can all agree on its validity. Fail to do that, and all we have is your prejudice and opinion. DionysosProteus ( talk) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Truly, I do not care in the least how you or anyone else chooses to categorize trivia. This proposal is not about the naming of categories but of this article. As far as the naming of categories in wikipedia goes, I have noticed that they are often resolved not on the basis of sourced references, but rather on a consensus of editorial opinion; it is unfortunate, in my opinion, that wikipedia does not apply the same rigorous standards to its naming of categories that it does to its articles. Any "disdain" I feel is reserved only for instances in which subjective opinions are passed off as established facts. But with regard to the proposal to move, the categories are irrelevant, as is my or anyone else's assessment of the degree of competence displayed by the general editorship. Wikipedia explicitly excludes 'editor consensus' as evidence for claims made in articles and your suggestion that the current naming of categories is "highly informative" to this proposal is nonsense; different criteria apply to definitions in articles and to category naming conventions, as I'm sure you know. With regards to the development of English language, why don't you give the OED a call and explain their mistake to them; record it, so we can all share the sound of their laughter. Clearly, you're the expert, not them, eh? I'm not "clinging" to anything--I'm applying the criteria established by Wikipedia. Perhaps you might consider doing the same?
You claim that "it also has a particular meaning outside the context of film theory. It has entered the lexicon as a recognized phrase meaning "film that exists only within a work of fiction", as evidenced by its use in any number of reliable sources". Yet no source that you have yet identified provides any such definition. If it does, kindly point to it so that we can all examine the definition for ourselves. Original research has no place in Wikipedia articles; unless you provide a definition, your proposal amounts to a request that your own opinion be allowed to pose as established fact. It isn't. Notice that all you need to do to address all of these concerns is to point to a single sentence somewhere in a reputable source that says something to the effect of "A fictional film is a film that..." If, as you claim, it has "entered the lexicon", this should present no difficulties whatsoever. But there's a reason you cannot provide a sourced definition: it doesn't mean what you think it does. I certainly don't "know it means what [you] say it means" - it is precisely that that I'm asking to be substantiated by a sourced definition. It is not "irrationality" to oppose the incorporation of opinion masquerading as fact. DionysosProteus ( talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The redirect Non-narrative film is currently being discussed at RfD. As part of that I have suggested merging that concept into this article (which would require only a little rewording, as it is presently mainly about the contrast). Your views and comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Non-narrative film would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to narrative film. ( non-admin closure) James ( talk/ contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Narrative film be
renamed and moved to
Fiction film.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Fictional film → Fiction film – A move was requested over 9 years ago, but no consensus was reached. I’m requesting this move because this article is clearly about “fiction films” that exist and are works of fiction, not “fictional films” that don’t exist. See also Category:Fictional films. 165.91.13.204 ( talk) 16:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)