Talk:The Burmese Harp

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

article moved Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The Harp of Burma article is about the same book and is much briefer. I propose that we simply merge it into this article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge, did you really need to start an RfC for this? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not seeing agreement in this discussion in regard to the best titles for these pages, so as usual with a "no consensus" decision, there is no prejudice toward another near-future requested move. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• The Burmese Harp → The Burmese Harp (novel)
• Burmese Harp → The Burmese Harp

– The novel stub is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the English-speaking world. In the event of insistence upon a primary topic, it would have to be the 1956 film version which had been acclaimed as one of the great antiwar films and received a Best Foreign-Language Film nomination at that year's Academy Awards. The base title should be at The Burmese Harp disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support: The article seems like more of a dab page for the films than a real article about the novel (although the novel is presumably notable). For example, the article contains no summary of the plot of the book, and no comments about the book by literary reviewers. The only part of it that would really be lost by converting it to a dab page would be the discussion of the 1986 animated television adaptation, which does not seem very notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I've improved the article on the novel, making a start on a plot section and expect to do more tomorrow. It's just the way with novel articles, we don't finish them. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Along with mentioning the base title in the nomination, I should have added that The Burmese Harp can become a redirect to the already existing Burmese Harp disambiguation page or that the title of the dab page may be moved to The Burmese Harp. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support this move 72.239.6.168 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support and move The Burmese Harp (1956 film) to The Burmese Harp. It's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the articles called "The Burmese Harp", capitalized and with the "the". It receives 78.1% of the page views, despite the book being at the base name. If the film article isn't moved, I oppose the move. The novel article is a better WP:CONCEPTDAB solution than putting a bare dab page at the base name - all uses of "The Burmese Harp" are based on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted since the nominator's requested move of Burmese Harp to The Burmese Harp was not included in the move request template until now. Relisting so that any potential watchers of Burmese Harp will be informed of this move request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The comment before the relist made by Cuchullain was an (edit conflict) with the relisting edit. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Cúchullain's suggestion: The 1985 film was apparently the second-largest box office draw in history up to that time for a Japanese film and the #1 film of the year in Japan. More people probably saw that version than the 1956 version that was suggested to be placed as primary. I think it is appropriate for the dab page to be at the base name. I don't really think WP:CONCEPTDAB applies very well here, since there isn't really a "broad concept" involved. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Are we going to make one of the Jane Austen TV or film adaptations primary for that novel? This novel is one of the most notable novels in modern Japanese literature, and the two famous films both derive their fame from the novelist's creation. What's more there is certain to be another remake of the novel coming. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. In formulating the nomination, I had hoped to emphasize the term "English-speaking world". There are numerous non-English popular references which have iconic status within their own culture, but are basically unknown among English-speakers. The book was not even translated into English until 1959, 13 years after its publication in Japan and 3 years after the Oscar-nominated 1956 film version. The book's English version has remained relatively little-known and, while the 1956 black-and-white film version has been appearing for decades on the classic film circuit and within best-film lists, the 1985 color version, despite its success in Japan, has not had a high profile in the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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