Talk:Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Fictionality
Given that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a fictional car from the film of the same name, can we assume that it is also fictional in the DWU just like we've assumed that G.I. Jane, Captain Caveman and Hannibal Lecter are? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  12:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * But T:NO RW, surely? If those pages refer to their contents as fictional when the source does not say so, then that conjecture should be removed. After all, we get many stories feature non-DWU elements as actually being real, despite in the real world them beng fictional. There may be an argument about assuming the real world context surround the story and the authorial intent, but many times this information isn't available, and there is a lot of precedent for many things being real. Case and point, something like John Steed and Emma Peel. 18:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I completely understand your point; also in Kaleidoscope was a reference to a fictional prison from Porridge which seems to be real in the DWU. But T:NO RW is interpreted far looser these days. Look at the likes of Abner Perry, Andrew Aguecheek or Tobey Maguire, for instance.
 * If we were to adhere strictly to T:NO RW, this page would be completely impossible to characterise, as would pages like G.I. Jane. It isn't even specified if Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is indeed a vehicle. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  07:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * So I see some level of violation of T:NO RW on Tobey Maguire (namely, one of the categories). But I'm not seeing it on the others. Care to point out what you're talking about? Najawin ☎  07:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The page titles. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  07:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, T:NO RW accounts for that. I wasn't sure it did. But that's not really the point. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  07:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a violation. Every page has to be named something. There was an explicit ruling by Czech on this in the old forums. It wasn't part of T:NO RW because it was in forum rulings, but then the forums were gone, and so some newer users didn't realize this, so there were some issues. So it was added as part of the rule. Every page must be named, so long as we note that these are conjectures, we're fine. We just can't go past that. Najawin ☎  07:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't saying it was a violation. I was saying it's not the case that we never consider the real world. Without doing so, we have no categories for the likes of this or G.I. Jane. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  08:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge of that issue off hand. Perhaps it should be discussed as well. But I don't think there's some general trend that we're laxer on T:NO RW. Najawin ☎  08:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that there was a time that Tobey Maguire's page would have been called "Spider-Man's actor", I'd disagree that NO RW isn't more lax. But, again, that's not really my point. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  08:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * But page names were never part of that policy. But sure, I can understand that it's unrelated to your point. I disagree though that G.I. Jane doesn't have a category to go into though. We could use individuals from unknown eras. (Even if that perhaps assumes too much still.) Najawin ☎  08:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)