Jump to content

Talk:Narrative film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional film → Fiction film

  • As seen at the archive, a long and rancorous debate closed with no consensus. The main objection IMHO was that the literature uses the term "fictional film" to mean "a film that is a work of fiction" and that the OED apparently doesn't list "fiction" as having use as an adjective. However, as the main objector himself acknowledged, both the terms "fiction film" and "fictional film" are used in the literature, including by the co-author of the book to which he pointed as definitive. That the OED does or doesn't note contemporary usage of the word "fiction" is not relevant, as common sense tells us that the word is used as an adjective in ordinary English usage. "Fictional" used to mean "contained within a work of fiction" is in widespread if not overwhelming usage across Wikipedia, with no fewer than 5,526 resultsin category names alone. Of particular note is Category:Fictional films, which collects articles on films that exist only within other works of fiction. By contrast, the Category:Fiction structure (including Category:Fiction books, a usage of which the objector claimed never to have heard before) deals with works of fiction. Clearly, maintaining this article at its current title is in conflict with a number of usage conventions within Wikipedia. Moving it resolves the ambiguity, allows for the creation of an article about fictional films should someone care to write one and brings the article in line with how things are done throughout the project. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • "Fiction film" is "jargon"? I do not think that word means what you think it means. And if "fiction film" is jargon, IOW "the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group," then so too is "fictional film" because it is used in the film criticism literature. There is nothing ungrammatical about "fiction film." And no, what is meant is fiction film, a film that is a work of fiction (in contrast to a documentary film). Linking to the article that I'm suggesting be moved to support the notion that it shouldn't be moved seems...odd. Use of "fictional" and "fiction" is overwhelmingly established throughout Wikipedia. Consensus is clear that fiction foo means "foo that is a work of fiction" and "fictional foo" means "foo within a work of fiction." Or are you seriously suggesting that we should rename over ten thousand categories and countless tens of thousands of articles, changing "fictional" to "fictitious" and "fiction" to "fictional" rather than moving a single article that's out of alignment with Wikipedia's long-established naming conventions? "Fictitious" carries with it the connotation that the fictitious item is intended for purposes of concealment, which should disqualify it from use in a category name as impermissibly POV. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other articles are badly written is no excuse for this one. Otto4711's post demonstrates that he does not understand Wikipedia conventions; in particular, the convention that links such as narrative film stands for the article name (of an article that is presently a redirect). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fictitious" carries with it the connotation that the fictitious item is intended for purposes of concealment, Huh? Whence did this figment arise? The principal sense is Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of fiction, as the OED puts it, and none of the other senses support this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I understand Wikipedia linking conventions just fine, thanks. I was talking about your link to Fictional film, not about your link to Narrative film. Here, read the sentence again: "Linking to the article that I'm suggesting be moved to support the notion that it shouldn't be moved seems...odd." In case it's still not clear, the article that I'm suggesting be moved is Fictional film.
  • And if you could clarify, are you in fact suggesting that the ten thousand plus categories named Fictional foos and that the tens of thousands of articles that are titled "Fictional foo" or "List of fictional foo" are misnamed? Can you point me toward some discussion or debate that supports that such consensus exists, in light of these tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of counter-examples?
  • As far as fictitious carrying a negative connotation:
  • "created, taken, or assumed for the sake of concealment; not genuine; false". Synonyms "spurious", "fake"; "Adopted or assumed in order to deceive"; "1. formed or conceived by the imagination; "a fabricated excuse for his absence"; "a fancied wrong"; "a fictional character" [syn: fabricated]; 2. adopted in order to deceive; "an assumed name"; "an assumed cheerfulness"; "a fictitious address"; "fictive sympathy"; "a pretended interest"; "a put-on childish voice"; "sham modesty"." While yes, "fictional" is mentioned as a synonym, surely not even the hardest of hard-core pedants can deny that these definitions connote negativity. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Conan the Librarian is not Conan the Barbarian and no one reviewing the article on either Conan is going to come to that conclusion. And even if there is one potentially ambiguous entry in the category, that does not invalidate in and of itself the category name.
  • As for the construction "fiction film" being barbaric, a number of notable film scholars disagree with you, including David Bordwell, co-author of the book the previous objector cited as "the standard text" on cinema studies. If "fiction film" is good enough for the co-author of the standard text on the topic, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "fictional" is ambiguous in relation to "film". In light of our goal to reduce ambiguity, you should be supporting the move of the ambiguously-titled Fictional films to Fiction films. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, move it to Narrative film then, whatever, get it off this namespace that it's squatting on. I think it's stupid to be so adamant against a term that's used in the literature, but if moving it to narrative film resolves it so be it. I wish you would have made this suggestion a bit more strongly than just saying narrative film has possibilities. Would've saved quite a lot of bother. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Well, where to begin...first off, let's expose the lie, shall we? 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. Except, we turn to the archived discussion (which I've re-archived to alleviate potential confusion, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop reverting the edit) and we find that you said I've yet to hear the phrase "fiction book" outside of this discussion. Now, as for the notion that "fiction" is not an adjective. Words are lovely things. They are flexible things. They may serve many different functions and serve as many different parts of speech. For example, "travel". It's a noun: "I will soon complete my travel." It's a verb: "I will travel to Spain." It's an adjective: "I must make travel plans." It's probably more parts of speech, but my point is made. As "travel" may function as more than one part of speech, so too may "fiction". It's a noun: "DionysosProteus' claim about what he said at the last discussion is a complete fiction." And it's an adjective: "Fiction fans gathered for their annual convention." See there? What "fiction" just did? It acted as an adjective, modifying the noun "fans." My learned colleague claims to hold several degrees relating to theatre and film and whatnot, yet seems singularly ignorant of the wonders of the language that he presumably studied to obtain those degrees and how it functions. As for book stores (hey look, the noun "book" is serving as an adjective! Neat!) not having sections labeled "fiction" and "non-fiction," that will certainly come as a shock to my local Barnes and Noble, who have their fiction and non-fiction sections quite clearly labeled as such, with "fiction" acting as an adjective modifying "section."
  • There is no issue here about replacing this article with one that says "A fictional film is a film that exists within a work of fiction." My learned associate is twisting my words to suit his purpose. What I said was that the move would free up this article space for such an article, should someone wish to write one. At no time did I suggest that such an article was mandated as part of this move proposal.
  • But really, all of this back-and-forth hardly matters, because for all of his bluster about the OED and the purity of language, my learned associate stands ready to abandon his principles like a red-headed step-child if I offer him a reliable source that says a fictional film is a film contained within a work of fiction. I contend that I have already provided several such references in the previous debate and that usage of the term within reliable sources is sufficient to establish the definition. Regardless, it hardly matters because what this is all coming down to is that my learned associate does not want the article moved because he doesn't like the idea of it. He admits that both terms are used in the literature to mean the exact same thing, yet rather than change one article to comport with Wikipedia naming conventions (which, despite his insistence to the contrary, do inform this discussion because it informs us of the overwhelming consensus on Wikipedia of how "fiction" and "fictional" are used here), he would rather obfuscate, misrepresent, flat out lie and dig in his heels. Seriously, what is the big damn deal here? Otto4711 (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to add one further comment, my learned colleague points to the discussion regarding Category:Fictional books and Category:Fiction books, noting that it was "contentious." Yes, it was at the time, but I note that the "contentious" discussion took place over two years ago and the consensus to maintain the categories as currently configured has held strong. There has been no change to the near-uniform consensus as to how "Fiction" and "Fictional" are used on Wikipedia. And I would ask my learned colleague the same question I asked of my other learned colleague who, sadly, has yet to respond. Do you suggest that we rename the multiple tens of thousands of articles and categories that use "fiction" to "fictional" and those that use "fictional" to "fictitious"? Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • As I have said repeatedly, on my talk page, on your talk page, on the Requested moves talk page and in edit summaries, I archived the previous discussion for two reasons. One, to prevent any possible confusion with there being two sections on the same page called "Requested move" and two, because I thought it was interfering with a template I was using to open the discussion. That is all. Had you bothered to take one second to ask me why I did it instead of immediately deciding that I was up to some nefarious scheme to hide the last discussion, you would have known that. Although you've been told it repeatedly and you still aren't getting it.
  • For someone with so many degrees relating to language, you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that language evolves with usage. Yes, "fiction" may or may not at some point in its history within the English language been exclusively a noun. That is no longer the case. "Fiction" clearly functions as an adjective, and whether or not the OED happens to note that fact is irrelevant. Dictionaries do not and cannot mandate meaning. Dictionaries record usage. That a particular dictionary, even one as authoritative as the OED, does not happen to record the adjectival usage of the word "fiction" at this time does not alter the fact that it is used as an adjective, both inside and outside Wikipedia. If the OED did not include, for example, a definition for "virus" that includes computer viruses, would you insist that Wikipedia not use the word virus in that fashion? Of course not, because that would be absurd. Every bit as absurd as your clinging to this fictional vs. fiction thing in the name of linguistic purity.
  • I have provided source after source after source that demonstrates this usage of "fictional film", and your response has been some nonsense about the context of the usage while ignoring that it is the context of the usage that establishes the definition of the term. For example, in discussing historical inaccuracies in period films, director Farhan Akhtar responds "True. But, ours is a fictional film. The historical facts are kept in the background. Of course, we do take some cinematic liberties." Because we are not stupid, we know that in this context "fictional film" means "film that is a work of fiction." And when Melissa Grego writes "The last real movie Roeper reviewed for At the Movies was Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona. But one more review is due to air -- on the Sept. 7 season premiere of HBO’s Entourage. Roeper pans fictional film Medellin and gets panned right back by Jeremy Piven’s bombastic character, agent Ari Gold.", because we are still not stupid, we understand that in this context "fictional film" means "film that exists only within another work of fiction." Clearly, it means what I say it means, and you know it means what I say it means.
  • I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of the time, thought and effort that thousands of your fellow editors have put into developing the consensus about category names in the Category:Fiction and Category:Fictional structures. Although of course you have no issue with appealing to that effort and time when it suits your purposes, as with your oft-cited books CFD. Perhaps your disdain for your fellow editors is what is preventing you from understanding that both the importance and the endurance of that consensus are highly informative of this discussion.
  • I agree that "fictional film" has a particular meaning within the context of film theory. However, 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. Given that you have acknowledged that the terms "fictional film" and "fiction film" mean the same thing within the context of film theory, opposing this move when an alternative that means the same thing and that brings the article in line with prevailing usage on Wikipedia is it is base irrationality. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I note that you have again failed to answer my question. Do you suggest renaming all of the "fiction foo" and "fictional foo" articles and categories or not? Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Disclosure: I have notified a handful of editors who have worked extensively with the fictional/fiction categories of this discussion.
  • Now then. You need to stop this disinformation that I am claiming that the OED is "wrong." I am not saying that the OED is wrong. I am saying that whether or not the OED happens to record the usage of "fiction" as an adjective is irrelevant to this discussion. Words do not enter the OED in real time. Are you suggesting that a word or style of usage does not exist between the time that it is coined and the time that OED records it?
  • Definitions may be understood by context. Do you really believe that anyone reading the article about the non-existent film Medellin that I quoted is going to fail to grasp that "fictional film" in that context means "film that exists only within a work of fiction"? Did you read that quote and have any confusion as to what it was referring to? I seriously doubt it, so your coy insistence that the use of the phrase in context does not serve as a definitional source is ludicrous. Arguing about the meaning of the term in film theory context while discounting context for its other meaning is contradictory.
  • The most insane thing about your position is that you've already acknowledged that "fiction film" and "fictional film" mean exactly the same thing in the context of film theory. You're arguing against moving the article from one name to another name that means exactly the same thing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I had never encountered "Fiction film" before, and found it confusing. We don't I think have an article on the other sense of "fictional film", and Otto would be I'm sure to (rightly) oppose a category for them. I don't think there is a problem to be solved here. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTKNOWIT is as invalid an argument here as it is at CFD. That you are unaware that the term "fiction film" is, as DP freely acknowledges, in wide usage in film theory and means the same thing as "fictional films" is irrelevant. Given the amount of work you've done in the books and novels categories you undoubtedly have run across the term "fiction book" and I'm sure had no real trouble connecting the two concepts. Part of the reason we don't have an article on the other kind of fictional film is that this article is parked in its namespace. We already have Category:Fictional films and I whole-heartedly support it as one of the more than 5,000 Fictional foos categories that demonstrate the strong and widespread consensus of how "fiction" and "fictional" are used on Wikipedia and how the current name of this article, especially when another namespace that means the exact same thing, is an abberation. Otto4711 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That names will be confusing or meaningless to the average, or even the above-average, user has always been accepted as a very relevant point at CFD. I must admit that though I read the debate I did not look at the article and was under the impression that it concerned not-real films in other media, which demonstrates how confusing these titles are. So my comment re categories above has been taken the wrong way round. Having looked at the article it is so inadequate and poor that I am tempted to suggest solving the problem by deleting it. But I can't support a rename to fiction film. "Fiction in the cinema"? Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you honestly believe, given the more than 10,000 categories and who knows how many articles that use "fictional" to mean "existing in fiction" that having an article caled "fiction film" is really going to be confusing to those who read it? Otto4711 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving per Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. ... The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
    Regardless of the degree to which "fiction films" is grammatically accurate (it's fine as far as I can tell), I think that "fictional films" will primarily be understood to mean "films that exist only in fiction" (see e.g. Fictional book) , which is clearly not the subject of this article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Narrative film" also seems like a good alternative. I think either of the two offered options is better than the current title. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see, so the word "fiction" has become an adjective only recently, then, and the OED has yet to catch-up? Interesting. When did this coining event occur? Perhaps someone should tell the OED, no? Seriously, though, the relative merits of two synonyms are peripheral to the proposal to move. Otto's claim that I'm "arguing against moving the article from one name to another name that means exactly the same thing" is misleading. That wouldn't be an improvement but it's not wrong in principle. You, however, are not arguing that "fiction film" is a better way to describe "fictional film", but rather that it should be moved to make way for another, alternative definition--one that has arisen from the category names and whose definition in any known source proves so fatally elusive. Black Falcon, that you "think that "fictional films" will primarily be understood to mean..." is, again, entirely subjective in the absence of an objective definition. That you feel it ought to be defined that way does not mean that it can in an encyclopedia. The naming convention says we ought "to prefer" - that is, when faced with a choice between valid alternatives, we should prefer... However, it is to this new, replacement article that I'm objecting, since I don't believe you can source it--it is not a valid alternative to occupy the article-name. Is there perhaps some reason that escapes me why no one in a source we can use has anywhere defined the term in the sense Otto wants to give this new article (whether or not he chooses to write it himself; that it can be written is inherent to the proposal)? Just one little sentence, somewhere, saying "A fictional film is..." and your sense of it? Given that the lexicon must be so great and my request for a single sentence so small? DionysosProteus (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not suggesting that we create an article about "films that exist only in fiction", as I do not know whether that topic justifies an independent article. In fact, the default action would be to leave "Fictional film" as a redirect to this article's new title, assuming that there is consensus for a page move. However, the relevance of that issue (whether an article is justified) is limited to the decision to create such an article, not to the decision to rename this article.
          A simple Google search confirms your argument that "Fictional films" is quite commonly used to refer to "a film that tells a fictional story or narrative". However, "fiction film" is also quite common ([1][2]). The exact Google hit counts are unimportant, but suffice it to say that they are approximately equal. Given this, and the potential double-meaning of "fictional film", which is a product of the meaning of "fictional" itself (e.g. "fictional character"), I see no reason not to rename this article to "fiction film" or "narrative film" (or, to be more accurate, I do not agree with the reasons given). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have offered up what, a dozen or so instances that demonstrate the usage of the phrase in the way I contend. Your constant response of "just one little sentence" is strongly reminiscent of a four year-old sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "la la la I can't hear you!" Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the comments on this article as it stands, I'd note that I didn't write this article and I don't think it's of a high quality at all. Despite that, there are good reasons to leave it where it is, rather than move or delete. Against a move to Narrative film, I'd note that although the article doesn't serve it too well, nonetheless there is a concept called "Fictional film" that is one of the basic categories of film studies. The reference I added to the page is one source that could be used to improve it. It's also the source for the definition of the term. Against a delete, I'd observe that despite it's low, stub-quality, it still nonetheless sketches in some valuable and relevant information about the term. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-narrative film

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to narrative film. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narrative_film&oldid=1203093733"