Talk:List of fictional detectives

Name Change to List of Famous Fictional Detective

This list should have its name change to begin with "List of" per WP:LISTNAME User226 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Becoming a list article wasn't my original motive of creating this arcle...My intend was to explain "great detective"...and the list was given as an example showing true "Famous" fictional detectives

...somehow, people like to add in not-really-famous and so-so-famous and multiple-supporting-character-from-a-fictional-work...

NO, THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LIST! I'll say a clean up is better, cause it's no point to creat another Category:Fictional detectives--Samcsli (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While it may not have been your intention to create a list article, the current format of this article most definitely fits that description. Please flesh out the article with information and reliable sources, before changing the classification. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter, even a list article should contain a simple description for the name with citation. see WP:LISTNAME,Lists of people....anyway, I have many reasons to say it is not a list article but a Category:Fictional detectives like article which need some clean up.--Samcsli (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree this is not a list really, but I suggest the name should be changed to Notable Fictional Detectives rather than "Famous" skatoulaki (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Expand

• The Television Detectives' Omnibus
• Icons of Mystery and Crime Detection
• The Great Detectives: The World’s Most Celebrated Sleuths Unmasked by Their Authors
• Famous Movie Detectives

using books from above and creat "short list"--Samcsli (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OR organization

There is no reliable source used to classify the detectives by "archetype" or explain the classification in this manner. Most other lists of fictional elements are sorted alphabetically or by medium.

Aside from that, the page has been renamed because the content is overwhelmingly a list and not a regular article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this be a list?

We have articles List of male detective characters and List of female detective characters. These are more exhaustive, although the division of male and female characters into separate lists is questionable: classifying people as male or female is better suited to non-diffusing subcategories.

This article contains both lists and editorialising. Division of the lists into "amateur", "private", "police" and "forensic" is based on some unsourced "archetypes". It would be more useful to have an article on "Fictional detectives", which would give more sourced discussion of fictional detectives such as the amateur, the Gentleman detective, etc; discussion which does not fit into Detective fiction. cagliost (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Categorization

There is a complaint hatnote that says:

• Original research|date=March 2023|reason=Organization is, without justification, based on invented "types"; entries would better be reorganized by medium.

This a valid objection at first but the suggestion for "better" organization is personal opinion; I am removing it. Zaslav (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)