Talk:The Devil's Advocate (West novel)

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Number 57 in topic Requested move 31 January 2015

Requested move

edit
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 to move the page in this case; suggest revisiting WP:NCB in order to gauge the consensus supporting removing first names in the case of less well-known authors, and then revisiting this request as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply


The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel)The Devil's Advocate (West novel) – Shall "Morris" be dropped? WP:NCB doesn't mention much about adding a first name in the title. Someone said "(West novel)" looks too ambiguous; I wonder if the current title is too precise. George Ho (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

"The Devil's Advocate (disambiguation)" page already lists it as "The Devil's Advocate (West novel)", and I wouldn't have any problem with this page's title being changed to reflect that. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - Morris West is not Dickens or Tolstoy, so (West novel) in itself is ambiguous and a strike out (Morris West novel) doesn't benefit anyone. I think very few post WWI and even fewer post WWII authors are known by surnames only, just as we don't entitle music (Lennon song) (McCartney album), given that WP:PRECISE doesn't mean WP:CRYPTIC there's no advantage to readers in the first name removal which has been favoured at WP:NCB, and which, at first sight at least, at WP:NCB seems to have been promoted by only 2 or 3 editors, unless there's an RFC somewhere. Otherwise there's no "consensus" when so few are involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose the NCB guideline is contrary to general Wikipedia practice of using the full name of the creator as the disambiguator, so seemingly a LOCALCONCENSUS. Further, many authors share the same surname, just walk into any bookstore or library, so "surname only" is fairly confusing. It is also contrary to matching disambiguators to the parent articles, which if the author has an article would not appear as just a surname. All books should be moved to full author names (or whatever their author Wikipedia article calls itself) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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.

Requested move 31 January 2015

edit
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: not moved. Number 57 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply



The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel)The Devil's Advocate (novel) – There's only one novel article in Wikipedia for this title, and if and when the others get a separate article West's would be the primary topic. Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
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.

Discussion

edit
Any additional comments:

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.

Notability?

edit

Before we get into a discussion about the title (see RM proposal above)... does this book pass our WP:Notability (books) criteria?
If so, then we need to establish why it is notable, and cite sources to support that fact. If not, then the RM is a pointless debate (because we shouldn't have an article on the book in the first place). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Clearly notable as winner of James Tait Black award. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ah... my bad... I missed that little fact (thanks for pointing it out)... so it is notable (we should probably beef up that section a bit... perhaps with a sentence or two explaining why it won the award... or something like that)... And with that interruption, we now return you to our regularly scheduled debate over disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply