[WikiEN-l] fictional categories

[Surreptitiousness]

David Goodman wrote:
> Fiction is a very broad term. fictions can be used for rhetorical
> purposes in serious discourse--fictional examples are a mainstay of
> philosophical argument, dating back to Plato's cave, if not earlier.
>
> For this hypothetical animal, I do not think there will be any
> difficulty finding a citation that says that it is a fiction.
>
>   
The point I am making is more that this is a dangerous path we are on.  
I would have no difficulty providing a source that Santa Claus or God 
etc are a fiction.  However, given that Schrödinger's cat is categorised 
in Category:Thought experiments, what does Category:Fictional cats add 
to the article, and should string theory or string (physics) therefore 
be categorised in Category:Fictional science?  I think we need to be 
very careful what we categorise when it comes to fiction, and what we 
are mixing up in our categories which categorise things which are 
fictive and things which are theoretical. Schrödinger's cat does not 
exist in a work of fiction, it exists, as you say, in a theroetical 
argument, which is different from a work of fiction. Another good 
example is Higgs bosun, or whatever it is that big collider can't find. 
Mind you, I notice The Lady, or the Tiger? is in Category:Fictional 
tigers, although not in Category:Fictional females, which implies there 
are even more flaws in the system.Especially when The Monkey and the 
Hunter avoids both Category:Fictional monkeys and Category:Fictional 
hunters.  Hope I've better outlined the issue as I see it.