Talk:1957 in literature

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The move is a precedent setting matter one would expect to affect all 335 pages in Category:Years in literature and should be done in an advertised RfC, maybe noticed through {{Cent}} and at other places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1957 in literature → Literature in 1957 – The present title "1957 in literature" is nonsense - or at least doesn't mean what it's intended to mean. The article is clearly about literary events in 1957, not about how 1957 features in literature. I have already put in a plea to change the title format of the entire series "xxxx in literature" at Talk:Table of years in literature. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Alfietucker (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Yes, I'm afraid you're right. This will entail a great deal of work, but I think it's for the best. I would expect this title to describe 1957's portrayal in literature. I suppose the old titles should remain redirects unless they're ever written over with such articles, however. Blah. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. All Year in Topic articles are called "[year] in [topic]" (the title's kind of a clue). We have Category:1957 in fiction and, potentially, Works of fiction set in 1959 for the other thing - erm, only we haven't actually got it yet because guess what - no one has thought of any entries. Deb (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is a special case. 1957 in science is unambiguous, but "literature" can refer to written works themselves or the study thereof. Literature itself isn't of much help, since it appears to discuss both. I suppose we could retool these articles to also include fictional depictions, but that seems unwieldy. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We've been there - that's how we came to create the "Works of fiction set in..." title.Deb (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb, you don't appear to have understood the point being made by BDD and myself. Plus, the apparent failure, or non-use, of "Works of fiction set in 1959" merely shows what a poor compromise/acknowledgement of the problem "Works of fiction set in..." is, as it is far too restrictive a title and it missed the point.

On the contrary, I completely understand your argument. But it will take a lot more than a request to move a single page to overturn the whole naming convention for these articles. The page move you carried out for 1970s in literature was a controversial one and shouldn't have been carried out without a requested move discussion. Deb (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is most acute with articles with titles such as "1970s in literature", which I did genuinely think would be about portrayals/recollections of the 1970s in literature, both contemporary and retrospective. I know it's going to be a headache to move all these pages to "Literature in...", but I think there are good reasons for doing so. Alfietucker (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Deb: I'm not sure what scope of change you believe I'm proposing. I understand there's a whole series of "[Year/Decade] in..." encompassing science and I don't know what else. But clearly the title is misleading/a poor fit for literature. I would strongly argue that the part of the series devoted to literature (I'm not talking about other subjects) should be retitled for the reasons I've given. Surely we should be considering how our readers find information, not make it a precondition of an article's title that it fits a "global" series whether it fits the subject or not, and so put unnecessary obstacles against readers finding information they want? Wouldn't you agree?

As I said at the start, I have already put in a plea to change the title format of the entire series "xxxx in literature" at Talk:Table of years in literature. I'd be grateful if you could point me to where I can appropriately suggest changing the titles of the entire series devoted to literature, as I understand that it seems unreasonable to ask for a title change on just one article in that series. Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to include them all in the page move request. There are instructions for requesting a multiple page move here. Deb (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. The article title COULD refer to the portrayal of 1957 in literature, but it is certainly sensible and grammatical to have it refer to 1957 in (the literary world). e.g. "What happened in 1957 in literature?" clearly is asking for the current article's sense of the phrase. So... are there plans to set up a series of articles on how each *year* is portrayed in literature? I kind of doubt it. If so, then at least there's an argument that this move would eliminate ambiguity. But if not, the current title is harmless. SnowFire (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have a longstanding practice of titling articles [Year] in [Foo]; although that practice may merit revisiting, the discussion should be holistic and centralized, and should involve all such titles or none, for consistency. bd2412 T 19:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support this and similar proposals for all other years. It appears to be a list of literature from 1957 but the title suggests literature that studied 1957. The article would be better as List of literature from 1957, but the proposal is a good one. Green Giant (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While I'm really am neutral about this currently, renaming only this one is a really, really bad idea. This probably affects thousands of titles and renaming this on its own simply wrong. If this is the correct rename, it should be started as an RFC on a page with broad exposure to get a much wider prospective for all of the affected series. Changing one title in a series is a bad practice. Also since the nominator is apparently frustrated with not getting action for the series, this nomination is a bit pointy. And again this does not affect one series, but an unknown number of series. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be "pointy" - though I do get your point. ;-) I'm quite happy for this discussion to be closed and to consider starting an RFC as suggested. Alfietucker (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.