[WikiEN-l] fictional categories

[Ryan Delaney]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I think you make a persuasive argument that Schroedinger's Cat should not be
in Category:Fictional cats. Therefore, I advise you to remove that category
from the article.

There isn't much else to say about this besides {{sofixit}}.

- causa sui