Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Protected[edit]

Why is this link protected? A fair choice would be a disambiguation..--Narayaan (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: This article should redirect to As I Lay Dying (band) instead of As I Lay Dying (novel)[edit]

According to this and this the band is view roughly 10 times more than the book. A few editors seem to disregard this fact and have repeated reverted the changes believing that they are right and statistics are wrong. !! time=02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this and this the band is view roughly 10 times more than the book. A few editors seem to disregard this fact and have repeated reverted the changes believing that they are right and statistics are wrong. – Jerryteps 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to make the claim that one of the most important works of American literature for over 80 years should take the back seat to a second rate band from an obscure sub-genre that's been around for a few years because a bunch of fanboys look at the article more? It's no secret pop culture gets more hits than high culture here, but it is not the business of Wikipedia to dictate policy around that fact. -R. fiend (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy or other consensus that backs you up on this? --John (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one to back you? Generally the more significant article takes precedence, in this case a seminal work of literature still widely read 80 years after it was published over a band in an obscure sub-genre that has been around for 8, and who may well be forgotten in another 8, regardless of which article is edited more. If there were no novel, there would be no band (at least not with that name). In any case, it's been turned into a disambiguation page, a (reluctantly) better choice than yours, so the matter should be settled. -R. fiend (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To back me? I am not sure what you mean as I have expressed no opinion on the matter. I merely warned you and another user against edit-warring. Let me ask the question again. Is there a consensus to back up your opinion, or is it just your opinion? --John (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Misread the sig. Thought I was talking to Jerry. But yes, there is a policy that the most significant article should be the target of a redirect, or, failing that, a dab, which is what we currently have, so I guess the matter is settled. -R. fiend (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a result. --John (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference to back up your claim that the is one of the most important works in American literature? I have read through the article and find no claims of this or anything indicating this at all. You claim you know about Wikipedia policy and yet you apparently know nothing about WP:VER. The band is not named after the book. Also the internet archives link at the bottom of the page is dead. – Jerryteps 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extract from the opening paragraphs of the band's article. – Jerryteps 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break one in discussion[edit]

And unlike the book, these claims have been referenced. (read article for references) And I wouldn't call a grammy nominated + other awards band "second rate" compared to a book back up by unreferenced claims of notability. (actually there a no claims what so ever and only 1 reference of a non substantial claim) – Jerryteps 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to you the novel is much more significant. That's your opinion, not fact, if it really was significant and not a false claim made up on the spot than there would be a mention in the article, and better yet, a reliable reference. But the band has been reliably reference with claims that have not been made up on the spot. – Jerryteps 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Maybe you should do some research outside of Wikipedia next time. Do you really need me to find references for every college course that has had this book in its syllabus for the past 50 years? Can you not accept that every semi-literate person in this country is very familiar with this novel, even though it has not received a single Grammy nomination? There is such a thing as common knowledge, that is, information well known to anyone with a working knowledge of the field in question. That you know nothing of the field of American literature is no fault of mine. In your world South Park is more significant than the Byzantine Empire because it has more google hits. That, of course, is meaningless. -R. fiend (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Jerry, these are interesting points. Do you have a problem with the solution that's been reached, to make this a dab page? Or do you, like me, regard the matter as resolved? --John (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a disambiguation is fine, it's just that R. fiend doesn't seem to know what notability means. – Jerryteps 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think a book in every school (unreferenced) meets the notability criteria? Why don't we go ahead and make every textbook ever made an article? And your coming to conclusions, in fact I think your attacking me, in fact, in all your arguments you have tried to attack me. You state that "In my world South Park is more significant than the Byzantine Empire" and yet I don't even watch South Park, your just pulling up false facts out of nowhere. You think that a book that has received slight national notability (unreference) is more notable than multi-award winning band that has achieved international notability? You think that an article that does not even meet the WP:NOTABILITY#General notability guideline is much more notable than the band? The band has achieved international notability, the book has not. You think that I don't research outside of Wikipedia? Wow, that's hilarious, you don't even know me and yet you come to conclusions all the time, you make things up so things can go your way, your one of those people who get upset because things don't go your way, just look at your arguments, they're attacks, your getting upset because it wasn't changed to a redirect to the novel. Plus I did, I checked the external links at the bottom (no indication of notability on these sites and one link was dead, who deletes a notable books webpage?) And I searched it in google, and yes, I know how to search google, and no, not all the topics were for the band. – Jerryteps 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying As I Lay Dying "received slight national notability" that "does not even meet the general notability guideline" and has not received any international notability demonstrates your ignorance more than I ever could. Apparently you are unaware it is probably the premier novel by a Nobel Prize laureate. But I guess that's nothing compared to being nominated for "Best Metal Performance." You stated your argument was based on which article has more views and edits (note it takes a lot of edits to write and clean up the subliterate ramblings of fans that make up the majority of Wikiepdia pop culture articles), which is a poor indicator of anything. The fact that you misstated much of what I wrote above doesn't speak too well either. -R. fiend (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Number 35. -R. fiend (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the novel was written 2 decades before he won a nobel prize, just because the author is notable does not make the book inherently so. And yet again you claim this book is notable and yet there is no assersion on the article what so ever that it is notable, just because it's 1 out of 100 000 books in a few educational institutions doesn't mean it's notable, I highly doubt it's his best work if that's the best it can do. You also prove my point that all your arguments are personal attacks and that you do not understand Wikipedia poilcy, so far you have not demonstated the slightest knowledge of WP:AGF, WP:NOTE & WP:VER. Your link is hardly reliable, maybe you should actually read up on some of Wikipedia's policies, the only policy you have so far demonstrated knowledge of is WP:IAR. – Jerryteps 01:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Number 2 – Jerryteps 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so i've misstated have I? You say that my argument is based around views and yet that was only 1 point, your extremely hypocritical, your just embarrassing yourself now, you try to turn everything I say around but you fail, you fail because you think your always right and that everyone else's opinions doesn't matter, your one of those types of people who doesn't care what the world thinks and thinks they know everything, you saying that I watch south park and you imply that i'm just a subliterate fan of the band and that's the reason i'm doing this, well here's a hint, none of that is true, I don't even listen to them, your just making false accusations which further proves my point. – Jerryteps 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may surprise you to learn that good articles are not arguments for how great or notable their subjects are (not this this is a terribly good article, but that is beside the point; we are discussing the subject). That you still claim the book is "not notable" amply demonstrates that you have hardly looked into he subject outside of Wikipedia. You know what? A Wikipedia article not saying "This is notable!!!!!" is not evidence, much less proof, of its non-notability. As for Wikipedia policy, well I was editing Wikiepdia while you were still in elementary school, I suspect, so spare me your lectures. Furthermore, I fail to see how you can claim that being ranked #35 on a highly publicized list of greatest novels of the 20th century, assembled by a panel of greatly respected experts is "hardly reliable," particularly when you link to a "rate it yourself" site with containing 9 reviews by anonymous people (half of which could be the band themselves for all we know). Furthermore, if you knew anything about the Nobel Prize for Literature, you'd know it is generally not awarded for a single work, but for the entire body of work of the author. As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury, being his most highly acclaimed works, undoubtedly were a factor in that prize. (Awarded, incidentally "for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel." (This cite is from Wikipedia, so it should suit you well), which perfectly describes As I Lay Dying with its 15 different narrators.) But a Nobel Prize is nothing compared to being named "Ultimate Metal God" by MTV2.
Oh, and once again, your final paragraph utterly misstates my position. Try to read more carefully in the future. And try to work on your grammar and punctuation. -R. fiend (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick things, then I'll likely drop this for good. Contrary to what you stated previously, the band is named for the book; the article even says so (withtwo citations). And lastly, your link has them down at #8 now (mine is still at #35). -R. fiend (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is wrong, in the interview they say the got the idea of the name from the novel. Say I create a band called Wikipedia, but I don't sing about Wikipedia or relate to it at all, I got the idea from the site but it is not named after it. Also, I would hardly consider a list from the books publisher saying it's one of the greatest books of all time reliable. And of course it fluctuates because opinions change (unlike your decade old list) and it has opinions from various people (i'm not saying the link is reliable, well, seeing as you think you can WP:IAR WP:VER I don't see why I cannot, oh that's right, you consider yourself to be right and every point I have put forward to be incorrect). Also, "This is notable!!!!!" is not notable, it asserts notability but meets CSD A1, but the novels article asserts notability but gives no reference of notability, it is a barely notable novel made notable by inheritance, all other assertions of notability are weak. You claim you were editing Wikipedia while I was still in Elementary school, again, you are making false accusations, you also claim I have poor literacy skills, twice in fact, you continue to attack me while not knowing anything about me, also even if you have been editing Wikipedia for that duration of time then you should know Wikipedia policy by now, but clearly you don't, you don't seem to understand (or care about) WP:AGF, WP:N & WP:VER, I can see why you resigned from administrative duties. – Jerryteps 09:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have found more reliable top 100 lists (obviously you do not understand that first party sources are not reliable) The book is not listed here, here and here. 2 of those links are from internationally notable sources while one is notable in Australia. These unbiased opinions made by experts from a third party source (third party sources that are reliable (read WP:RELIABLE, I think you need to, also, try reading WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY). – Jerryteps 09:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out this and this. – Jerryteps 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I'm not quite done. First of all, your feigned distinction between "getting the idea" of a name from somewhere and "being named after it" is just silly. If you name your band Wikipedia, you are naming yourself after this site, regardless of whether or not you sing about it. They admit they were named for the novel, even if the similarities end there.
As for the reliability of the list, to call The Modern Library "the books [sic] publisher" shows, again, just how little you know about this subject, which is hardly surprising, as you've already established that you know nothing about literature, notability, the Nobel Prize, first party sources, and lord knows how many other topics. I think you attained Epic Fail when you called the Modern Library's list unreliable but linked to "rateitall.com" to back up your claim, where I found the following information about the band: apparently the are "the best band 4ever", they are "AWESOME", and they, I believe the term is, "FUCKING ROCKSS!!!" (They have also, by the way, fallen to #9 out of 14). Yes, that discourse is right up there with Gore Vidal, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and Daniel J. Boorstin.
Your further attempt to prove the novel is not notable (or barely notable, or whatever it is you're trying to prove at this point, I've sort of lost track) basically amounts to that one panel did not name it one of the 100 best books ever. Only in your world does "not one of the best of all time," in the opinion of some select people, equal "not notable". Obviously the book will not make every such list. The final list you gave, by the way, is hardly reliable, as it was done by reader voting, making it open to abuse they way rateitall.com is. That's why I didn't bother mentioning The Modern Library's readers' poll (which As I Lay Dying did make) as it was clearly infiltrated by Scientologists and Objectivists. (That poll also allowed current bestsellers, which most such polls do not, as they tend to skew the results in their favor). I'm not sure why you're still going at this (or why I am either, really). It's been well established that As I Lay Dying is a very notable book, by anyone's standards. If you refuse to see that, well, there's not much I can do. You can try all sorts of backhanded ways in futile attempts to support your original claim that the book was basically a deletion candidate, but now you're just grasping at straws. If you think the Modern Library list is not notable, not reliable, and trumped by any and every readers' poll out there, then you should probably nominate its article for deletion. But I advise you to quit trying to argue about a subject you know absolutely nothing about. It's tedious, and it gets you nowhere. -R. fiend (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that the link was not reliable at all, if you had bothered to read what I have said then you would know this. Again, you have misstated what I have said, I have never said that the novel qualifys for speedy deletion, where are you getting this from? Also on the Modern Library 100 Best Novels Wikipedia article it even said it was considered by some to be a sales gimmick. And yet again you have attacked me by calling me illiterate when you know basically nothing about me. Where here has it been well established? Being inherently notable does not make it well established, it makes it inherently notable which gives it notability but not significance, unless you can prove that it was this book that was the main reason he got a nobel prize and back it up with a reliable reference then you have established independent notability. Plus again with my links, the novel was not mention once in these reliable and greater known third party sources. But I advise you to quit trying to argue about a subject you know absolutely nothing about (Wikipedia policy). It's tedious, and it gets you nowhere. – Jerryteps 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break two in discussion[edit]

(outdent)Can I suggest taking this to WT:N? It may gain a wider readership there, if your intention is to resolve the policy issue. If you two are going to have a problem working together in future I suggest WP:DR. Or you might both just be sensible, accept this is resolved, and move on to something else. It's up to you of course. --John (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with John. I have also removed the RfC from this page as it seem every one here accepts a DAB page as a reasonable solution and so the current argument is just beating a dead horse. Icewedge (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

So, in sum, we have a notable book by a notable author, and we have a notable band named after the book. Both are notable, so we have a disambiguation page. Let's move on with our lives, lest this enter lame territory. --John (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was extremely limited and did not encompass enough editors to achieve true consensus. As it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term." That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, and the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article. In order to go against Wikipedia conventions, you will need to gather a much larger consensus, such as by going to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New attempt to gain true consensus on As I Lay Dying disambig[edit]

A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on this disambig redirect page. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.

The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.

I have posted a number of links to this new discussion, which should bring in more than a few editors. This should have been done before but wasn't. I hope people will post their comments below.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on whether As I Lay Dying should redirect to this disambig page[edit]

  • Oppose. As I Lay Dying should redirect to the novel.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I Lay Dying should not redirect to any page titled "As I Lay Dying (phrase)". The primary topic article should be moved to the base name, or the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name if there is no primary topic. In this case, the novel is the primary topic and the move of the base name to (novel) back in 2007 should be undone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The novel is clearly the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Note: I change the heading for the preceding section from Comments on whether or not As I Lay Dying should redirect to this disambig page to Straw poll on whether As I Lay Dying should redirect to this disambig page because people were !voting there. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me the entire issue comes down to the band being named for the novel. When you add in that the novel is one of the most famous of the 20th century--resulting in such honors as having a metal band named after it :-)--the novel is obviously the primary topic.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As JHunterJ noted above, "As I Lay Dying" should not be a redirect, it should be the title of either the primary topic or the disambiguation page if no primary topic exists. I agree with SouthernNights that the discussion should focus on determining whether there's a primary topic for As I Lay Dying, as that's the underlying issue here. --Muchness (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed also here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#As I Lay Dying disambig. May I suggest someone request a move of As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) to As I Lay Dying? --Una Smith (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support giving this discussion more time. The problem with the previous "consensus" on this issue is that only three editors or so took part in the discussion, which isn't enough (especially when there was no notice about the discussion given on relevant article talk pages and such). --SouthernNights (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is part of the process of requesting a move. --Una Smith (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't agree with the idea that the band being named after the novel automatically makes the novel the primary topic. Landon1980 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, where does it say it was a consensus? It was a discussion of the parties involved at the time on what should be done, it was no where claimed that it was a consensus at all. Jerry teps (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never could find any claims of consensus either. I thought I must be missing something. This whole discussion is/was a big waste of time. According to SouthernNights Barack Obama should redirect to Barack Obama Sr., seeing how Obama is named after his father. Also, as far as the link I gave with the page view statistics, I think during the time frame those statistics are based on the disambig was the target virtually the entire time, if not the entire time. Landon1980 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first 20 days were, but looking at the first 20 days in the results still shows conclusive evidence. Jerry teps (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 Move Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) to As I Lay Dying, over redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support extent of discussion here is ample evidence the base name is ambiguous and the disambiguation page should be placed there. That will facilitate disambiguation of incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Novel is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes the novel the primary topic? That is where I get confused. Does view count have nothing to do with what the primary topic is? Landon1980 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The slow edit war over the target of the base name redirect makes view counts a little iffy. If the band is the target of the redirect and someone's looking for the novel, they end up hitting three pages: As I Lay Dying, then As I Lay Dying (band), then As I Lay Dying (novel) (possibly after As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). Since the dab, novel, and band counts have all been targets repeatedly over the last several months, none of their hit counts mean as much as they would have if discussion had taken place in the recommended WP:BRD fashion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was said best on another page — when in doubt, disambiguate. That it's required this much discussion makes it clear, at least for me, that there is no primary topic. At the very least for keeping incoming links clean, the base name should be the disambiguation page. Mlaffs (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think there is a primary topic in this case. Landon1980 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I still believe the novel is the primary topic, its obvious no consensus on this can be achieved. Make As I Lay Dying the main page and disambig from there.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I made this page so all the different redirects to the band/novel wouldn't have separate disambiguation pages and if this page changes, then we wouldn't have to change the other redirects as well. Jerry teps (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: The novel is clearly the primary topic, IMO, for at least three reasons. The novel existed long before the band members were born; the band named itself for the novel; and the novel will be read long after the band is forgotten. The fact that many Wikipedia users are primarily interested in current ephemera does not change those facts. However, it is clear that there is a need for disambiguation, so it makes sense to me to maintain a disambiguation page. I don't care what the pages are named -- except that I would strongly oppose renaming the band article to As I Lay Dying. --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Examing incoming links from mainspace to the base name (here), the band wins; in terms of reliable sources, I expect the novel wins. There is a third item on the dab page, though, and again: when in doubt, disambiguate. By putting the disambiguation page at the base name, at least the incoming links can be properly disambiguated. --Una Smith (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm doing this right or not, but according to this the band gets nearly 3 times the views when compared to the novel. Landon1980 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did it almost right. The problem is that page views due to redirects are counted as views of the target page; so because As I Lay Dying has been a redirect and its target keeps changing, the stats are more or less bogus. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the band article the target for a lengthy period? Landon1980 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fact that we can sit here and argue about it is proof enough to do what you have suggested. Landon1980 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The base name page has been moved once and protected once; as a redirect, it has been changed many times; see the base page's history. --Una Smith (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, my one year old son is digging at my keyboard and I didn't have time to "dig" through the history. I still think that neither band nor novel should be the target. What you have suggested seems like a good solution. Landon1980 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm excuse me? The novel wins in reliable sources? If you look at the novels article the reference section is completely empty and the external links section is just various other information. In the previous discussion I gave some links (not the "Number 2" link, that was just a comparison with their link as it was completely unreliable) which showed reliable top 200 books and As I Lay Dying was not mentioned in any of them at all. Jerry teps (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What that "reliable sources" comment meant is that if you turn to actual books and libraries and such, the novel is more notable than the band. And the novel is mentioned on many lists of the top novels of all time. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if you ask a librarian they're going to say the novel is much more notable, i'd be surprised if they had even heard of the band at all. I'm not sure what you meant though, "turn to books"? Also, can you give and npov + reliable + notable recent top 200 lists? The list that R. fiend gave was made by the publisher of the book and contained almost exclusively their licensed books. My 3 reliable, NPOV and very notable lists did not list As I Lay Dying at all. And you just say that it's notable but you haven't provided any facts at all, Wikipedia style is to explain how the subject is notable, not that it is notable. The bands article states clearly how it is notable, the book hardly explains notability at all, with no references at all. Jerry teps (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fundamental Wikipedia guideline that the notability of a subject has absolutely nothing to do with how well or poorly written that subject's article is. As for As I Lay Dying being a top novel, the Modern Library lists it among the top 100 recent novels, as does best 100 novels of all times lists it. But those are only web based searches. More importantly, the The Library of America has reprinted it, the book The Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman lists it as one of the classics of world lit, Harold Bloom in his The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages lists it as a top novel, as does 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. And that is only the start of those critics who list the novel as one of the classics of world literature. If you are seriously trying to argue that the novel isn't notable, I suggest you bone up on your literary history. I have also added this info and more to the article, since the article was obviously lacking without it.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the link Landon gave was during the time when the disambiguation was the main target. Jerry teps (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page got under 300 page views in 2008, all in November.[1] This is a good example of the low importance of traffic via the Wikipedia search box, compared to traffic via incoming links from other Wikipedia pages or from Google. People using Google can see enough of the page results to pick the one they want before they visit the page. The article about the band has very thorough incoming linkage. --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, upon seeing that the base name was 6th on Russ' list of dab pages with the greatest increase of incoming links this week, I went there to do a little cleanup. Of the 49 incoming links that I disambiguated to the correct article, I'd say about 70% of them were to the band and the remainder to the novel. Although I wouldn't attest to that being an exact breakdown, as I wasn't counting, I think it's another data point to the argument that disambiguation at the base name is necessary. Mlaffs (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So basically I can say that As I Lay Dying is the most notable band in the world and has over a billion records sold, all completely unreferenced and that would make it much more notable? Because that's basically what the Novels article says (albeit, not as exaggerated). The article's references are hardly reliable, the modern library reference is very POV, and those ISBN links are for the book itself. Also, the references you gave for the novel being the best novel (including the best 100 novels link) around are unprofessional opinions and the 1001 books you must read reference is a joke, any half notable book would be in there. Also instead of making multiple <ref> tags, try <ref name="ref1">ref</ref> and then when you use the reference again use <ref name="ref1"/>. Jerry teps (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the references are highly notable, especially the books The New Lifetime Reading Plan: The Classical Guide to World Literature by Clifton Fadiman and John S. Major, Collins and The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages by Harold Bloom. In addition, no one said the novel is the most notable novel in the world, merely that it's a very important one in world literature. You really need to learn more about both Wikipedia and literature before making silly comments like this. Anyway, this is my last comment on this b/c you're merely wasting people's time at this point.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one wasting peoples time? So then why did you making this discussion on this when it has been discussed over, and over, and over and unsurprisingly this "attempt at true consensus" achieved nothing more than removing "(disambiguation)" from the disambiguation page. So if that's not wasting peoples time, i'm not sure what is. "I need to learn more about Wikipedia"? So that's why you can't do something as simple as reusing the same references and you obviously have some misconceptions of what a consensus is, as you continuously claim that the previous discussion was an attempt at consensus. You really need to learn more about both Wikipedia and Metal music before making silly discussions like this. Jerry teps (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few brief points here:
  1. You both need to try to be more civil and less confrontational when discussing this.
  2. While both the novel and the band are notable, the novel is (IMO) more important within the context of literature than the band is in the context of music.
  3. The state of As I Lay Dying (novel) (and the footnotes and citations thereof) are not a good proxy for the importance of the novel.
  4. The band derived their name from the title of the novel, and as they are evidently admirers of the novel, it is not some form of slight against them (or disservice to their fans) to have a search for "As I Lay Dying" point to the novel's article and/or this disambiguation page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band is one of if not the most notable metalcore band in the world. Pretty much what you said (point 2) is "Child 1 came first in their maths class and Child 2 came first in their art class so Child 1 is doing better at school (based on the single subjects)". It entirely depends on which genres you consider to be more important than others. Jerry teps (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Book" trumps "obscure genre of music". Deal with it. -R. fiend (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no, it's only obscure because you don't know anything about it, if you did you would understand how notable the band is compared to the novel. Jerry teps (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard says their latest album is ranked 45th in the Top Independent Albums sales (after 16 weeks) and peaked at rank 2. Unlike the outdated personal opinion references, this is a very notable and reliable reference. Jerry teps (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's not what Hit bull meant to say at all. In fact, that is a total misconstruction of his meaning. He never mentioned better, only importance. A very simple, non-scientific test can be used to verify this. Ask yourself "Is As I Lay Dying(band) going to change the world of music more than As I Lay Dying changed the world of literature?" Rebuttal (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering that AILD is a grammy nominated, chart topping metalcore band, I'd say yes. They have also been awarded titles such as "Ultimate Metal God" by MTV and "Artist of the Year" by the San Diego Music Awards. But then again, no band has changed music, even big bands like U2 haven't changed much. Jerry teps (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "It entirely depends on which genres you consider to be more important than others." The analogy was that it depends on peoples perspective on what is important, and what is not. But then again, he did say IMO, so what I said wasn't completely necessary. Jerry teps (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point I was making is that in terms of categorization, "novel" is an enormous, first-order classification, subordinate only to the very general category of "written works", while "metalcore" is a lower-order sub-genre of either punk or heavy metal (not going to get into that particular debate here), which in turn is a sub-classification of "rock and roll", which in turn is a sub-classification of "Western music", etc. If the claim were merely that As I Lay Dying (novel) was among the most important stream of consciousness novels from the Southern Renaissance, that would be analogous to the description of As I Lay Dying (band) as among the most important metalcore bands. But it's not. There are numerous reliable, scholarly sources stating that the novel is among the hundred or so most important novels of any culture, language, or style, in the entire history of ever. Have any reliable sources ever stated that the band is among the hundred or so most important musical artists in the entire history of music? Of course not. They're important, which is why they have an article in the first place, but they're not THAT important. Which is why the novel or the dab page make more sense at As I Lay Dying. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So one persons opinion in a for profit book is more valid than a highly reliable sales chart which places it much higher?

Also, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,


It should redirect to the band, as they are currently much more popular and notable that the novel. And those links that I gave at the start of the article point out that the band is view about x10 more than the novel. And this was when the disambiguation was redirecting to the novel!

Also, more than a month reply to my comment? I think this should either just be forgotten or taken to the next level as this isn't going anywhere. Jerry teps (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still rambling on about this shit? Can't you give it a fucking rest already? -R. fiend (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been happy to let it lie, if not for you trying to put words in my mouth above. And just saying that the band is more popular and notable than the novel doesn't make it so. For example: Google books lists 1,192 results for "As I Lay Dying" + Faulkner. A few of these are editions of the book itself, but the rest are scholarlty discussions of Faulkner and the novel. A Google books search for "As I Lay Dying" + Lambesis returns nine results: Four editions of Webster's quotations, which include a quote by Lambesis, three digitized issues of Revolver magazine, a German-language volume of something called "The Wikipedia Lexicon", and one actual book: "New Wave of American Heavy Metal‎" by Garry Sharpe-Young. If the band is so much more notable than the novel, why isn't anyone publishing anything about it? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about everyone leave this alone for a while? Firstly, the disambiguation page has been at this name for three months now — the heavens haven't opened up, the world is still spinning on its axis … perhaps a sign that disambiguation was the appropriate solution? Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, it really wouldn't matter whether one or the other were more notable or popular than the other — that they're both notable and popular is reason enough to assume that disambiguation is the right solution. Finally, as I've pointed out before, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has so many valuable uses). I think it's safe to say this discussion could be described as extended. Mlaffs (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisitation[edit]

I think the previous discussion has missed one key factor: the evidence that Faulkner's novel is not the primary topic is faulty. As has been pointed out above, the page view statistics and raw Google hits are fair well useless for our purposes. The only real way for us to determine whether or not there is a primary topic is to look at the most common usage demonstrable by reliable sources. Doing a Google books search, I found that while not all entries referred to the novel, the vastest majority did, and in the first 10 pages of results there were no books referring to the band. Google Scholar was similarly telling - again, no articles on the band, and virtually all for the novel. Now clearly, the article on the band has many citations to reliable sources. But not all sources are created equal. As V says, "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is." The band may appear more frequently on heavy metal-centered websites and in the news, but the novel is unarguably discussed more frequently in peer-reviewed articles and university-printed books - the type of sources Wikipedia relies on. Unless the band backers can demonstrate that the metal group appears frequently enough in reliable sources of a similar caliber to make it ambiguous with the novel, there's just no argument.--Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. It seems one misguided individual with a metalcore fixation has decided that the article "As I Lay Dying" should be about the band, or, if that is out of the question (and it is) it should be a disambiguation page so the reader can decide for himself whether one of the most renowned novels of the 20th century is more significant than being named MTV2's "Ultimate Metal God" once upon a time. Just about everyone else agrees that the novel should get preference. -R. fiend (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the case... I guess my only other question is, when do we change it back?--Cúchullain t/c 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything said here. But it is doubtful a new discussion will lead to consensus to change any of this since there are so many people supporting this band. But if people here wish to go forward with a new consensus-building discussion, I will support it. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 out of 3 sounds like a decent enough consensus to me. Only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident, and they seem pretty happy with that. -R. fiend (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about the book or the band, but if I can quote myself from the previous discussion for a moment:
Firstly, the disambiguation page has been at this name for three months now — the heavens haven't opened up, the world is still spinning on its axis … perhaps a sign that disambiguation was the appropriate solution? Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, it really wouldn't matter whether one or the other were more notable or popular than the other — that they're both notable and popular is reason enough to assume that disambiguation is the right solution. Finally, as I've pointed out before, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has so many valuable uses). I think it's safe to say this discussion could be described as extended.
It's eight months now, and I still don't see that anyone has been harmed by the disambiguation page being at this name. There was a reasonably strong consensus in favour of the current solution the last time this was discussed. If you want to rip the band-aid off again, can I suggest that you advertise this discussion at the talk pages for the articles for both the book and the band, as well as at the requested moves page? 3 out of 3 (well, 3 out of 4 now) is certainly consensus, but it's a pretty small sample size to overturn a relatively recent decision.
Just my two cents. Mlaffs (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus can change - and I don't believe that consensus necessarily prevailed in the past anyway. The section of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you're quoting now emphasizes the may: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic..." This is certainly not the determining factor. I personally think that the justification given for treating the band as prominent enough to cause confusion with the novel is faulty. At any rate enough time has passed that discussion may be productive one way or the other, so I think that a reasonably discussion per WP:RM may be productive.--Cúchullain t/c 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

I started a requested move on this topic, requesting that As I Lay Dying (novel) be moved back to As I Lay Dying, with the disambiguation page being moved to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). Please weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done — since most of the past discussion regarding this has taken place here, I've left a note pointing back here in case people are interested in reading past discussions for context. Mlaffs (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, sir.--Cúchullain t/c 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The definition of grotesque givewn in the passage is startlingly horrible. The grotesque is an American genre (i.e. Poe)

Last edited at 18:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:As_I_Lay_Dying_(disambiguation)&oldid=1136293469"