I think calling Piotr Checkov the "fictional" brother of Paval is a misnomenclature.
Paval, along with Jim, Leonard, and Spock are "fictional" characters.
Piotr was a delusion, caused by alien influence.
- Our articles are written from an in-universe point of view. Therefore, characters like Spock and Kirk are considered "real". --OuroborosCobra talk 21:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I can understand it, but I can't help but feel that "fictional" still isn't the BEST word. Perhaps technically acceptible, but in my opinion, not the "best".
Weird... its been literally a year to the day since I last brought this up... and this was only found again because it was linked (once again) to the "article of the week". After 365 days... I still stand by my statement that he wasn't "fictional". A fantasy, delusion, or imagining perhaps... but fictional implies something entirely different. It just isn't an apt phrase for the circumstance. Hossrex 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- What does fictional "imply"? --OuroborosCobra talk 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, fictional implies made up. The problem is, we don't know what, if any, basis Piotr has in reality. Thus the addition of my, now-reverted note that read:
- While the version of Piotr Chekov created by the entity was fictional, it is unknown what much basis in reality the entity's portrayal of Piotr actually had.
- Sure, maybe the wording wasn't perfect, but better to try to reword to explain what "fictional" means in the context than to go back to something that obviously has issues with some people. -- Sulfur 14:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Except we know exactly what basis he had in the "reality" of Star Trek (oops, Sulu not McCoy, damn my reading skills after waking up!):
- KIRK: "His only brother, killed in a Klingon raid."
- SULU: "His brother? He never had a brother. He's an only child."
- Fictional in this context means just that, fictional, not real, made up, absent from reality. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)