Talk:The Satanist (Wheatley novel)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. There is another notable book with the same title, which already covered in wikipedia in a section of a broader article. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear that a topic is not necessarily a standalone article, so I attach more weight to the views of the editor(s) whose positions reflect that policy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The Satanist (Dennis Wheatley novel) → The Satanist (novel) – The Satanist (novel) already redirects here. IIO owns "his" articles, so I don't blame why the redirect goes here. If The Satanist (novel) redirects here, the purpose to avoid ambiguity is a big FAIL. Either way the title is incorrect. At any case it should be The Satanist (Wheatley),as we don't use titles like the current, refer to Boxen (C. S. Lewis), The Ramayana (R. K. Narayan), Autobiography (Morrissey), or many of our books. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment none of the articles should just be using surnames as disambiguators, unless the author's own article is just a surname. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The Age of Reason (Sartre), Aura (Fuentes), but also Sea Change (Armstrong novel), The Village (Anand novel), or Between Two Worlds (Upton Sinclair), Flame (South Korean novel), and there are several styles used at Category:Novels. Isn't there a MoS to use a single style? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:NCBOOKS. [The "own" comment presumably relates to AfDs against 1950s songs]. I wasn't particularly familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) and it doesn't seem to be followed by all books, see The Social Animal (David Brooks book), The Social Animal (Elliot Aronson book) etc., but the guideline does say:

If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)", etc. In this case it is not advised to leave out the qualifier of which type of book it is, unless completely redundant, which may happen for some non-fiction books like Histories (Herodotus)/Histories (Tacitus).

So by that guideline The Satanist (Dennis Wheatley novel) → The Satanist (Wheatley novel) (to which no objection since WP:NCBOOKS say so), but since discussion has now been opened that does sound odd doesn't it, since unlike "Orwell" "Asimov", who are immediately recognizable by the surname, "Wheatley" is not a very distinctive surname. In the case of The Social Animal (Brooks book), The Social Animal (Aronson book) it sounds even odder. There seems to be little benefit in shaving off part of a dab when the author is never know by the mononym "Brooks", and we don't do [[The River (Bruce Springsteen album)]], I don't really see the logic. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved The Satanist (Dennis Wheatley novel) → The Satanist (Wheatley novel), the starting point of RM should be inline with WP:NCBOOKS, despite that I agree with 70.24.244.161. To have it not according to the NC complicates the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have moved it back. That would have been quite fine as a WP:BOLD move, but once an RM discussion is underway, it is time to join the consensus-forming discussion rather than act unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Oh boy, I get to upset everyone! I support this move in particular, inasmuch as this is the only article on a book of this name. Use a hatnote to the other book. However, IIO is correct about NCBOOKS, that The Satanist (Wheatley novel) would be the correct title if another novel of this name had an article. Books are sort of a neglected corner of Wikipedia, and it's not particularly strange to see titles that don't conform to it. Of the examples cited by the nominator, I think Boxen is fine because it's more about a fictional world that it is a book. I'll probably be fixing the other two. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

BDD, don't worry you're not going to upset me :), but please note that Peter Haining (author) (1971) writes that the 1912 The Satanist (Mrs Hugh Fraser novel) [redirect] "along with several other stories of the same period set the standards for today's occult fiction and can be seen mirrored in the tales of August Derleth, Dennis Wheatley.. ", so Haining considers both books notable. Given that Wheatley's book comes with the same title and is even printed by the same publisher Hutchinson & Co what is the purpose of hiding Wheatley's name from readers? I've asked this question many times, but who benefits from ambiguating a disambiguation in this way? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2014 (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.