Talk:Fictitious entry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fictitious entry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Reference works Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Literature C‑class

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Maps C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

clarity and sections

I added two clear sections to this page to emphasize the difference between fictitious entries that are practical jokes and fictitious entries that are copyright traps. I also added a few subsections within those sections, and a third section to talk about fiction about fictitious entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asianflavoure (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google

I suppose the google bing affair does qualify. Google added fake keywords that pointed to search results and bing copied 9 out of 100 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Companion to English Literature

I remember hearing Margaret Drabble interviewed, some years ago, probably on BBC Radio 4, about the latest edition of the Oxford Companion to English Literature. Margaret Drabble was being interviewed because she was the editor of this latest edition. I was taken aback to hear her say that the OCEL contained a fictitious entry, to combat plagiarism. My immediate thought was, "How can you trust a reference work which contains a false entry?"Rvam1378 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious entries on maps

The section begins:

Fictitious entries on maps may be called phantom settlements, trap streets, paper towns, cartographer's follies, or other names. They are intended to serve as traps for identifying copyright infringements^{[clarification needed]}.

But the section that follows doesn't back that up. The fictitious entities Goblu and Beatosu and Mount Richard are jokes, not copyright traps. The last paragraph explains that copyright traps are _not_ fictitious entities or other deliberate mistakes, but only stylistic fingerprints. Only one of the entries, Agloe, actually is a fictitious entity intended as a copyright trap, and of course that one ended up being non-fictitious. --50.0.128.103 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this assessment. I have thus separate sections of the fictitious entries page into "practical jokes" and "copyright infringement" as these are two different examples of how fictitious entries are used. Asianflavoure (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Asianflavoure[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fictitious entry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080403100827/http://www.teknikmagasinet.se:80/nydb/db.pl?template_file=link_bluffen.html to http://www.teknikmagasinet.se/nydb/db.pl?template_file=link_bluffen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost titles

While unintentional, I noticed Foundation's John Clute, while reviewing Twentieth-Century Science-Fiction Writers, found a couple ghost titles? Would those go in this article or deserve their own separate entry?--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 03:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]