User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-35218602-20200819204908/@comment-6032121-20200820031714

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-35218602-20200819204908/@comment-6032121-20200820031714 I'm not quite sure what the difference between 2. and 4. is, but I'd lean towards some mix of those.

Certainly whatever makes Mona Lisa tick in that one SJA episode is a very different set of technobabble from what grants the Lemuel Gulliver in The Mind Robber his (debatably-sentient) existence. It would be disingenuous to lump all the various takes on "technobabble makes fiction real" into one catch-all category when from an in-universe point of view they'd likely quite different things.

Although mind you, this would not prevent the creation of an additional category, not treated as an equivalent of species, called something like Category:Fiction later turned into reality. Being turned from fictional to real, or the reverse, is clearly a valid in-universe mechanic, described in those terms — at least in The Mind Robber. And while it would be insufficient to stand in for regular species categorisation, it would certainly be an interesting category to have around.

It might, alternatively, be a root category all those "subtypes"-based subcategories propsoed by Proposal 2. and/or 4.