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 "BtR" 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.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

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 "BtR" 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 "BtR" 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 "BtR" Saxon ☎ 07:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)