Talk:1906 (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

MERGE
It seems to me that there's a cogent argument for merging at this time, especially as the process is easily reversible if the project ever does move into principal photography.

The following discussion 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.

I know I have been one of the film article's staunchest defenders, but as it was I who wrote the proposed target in preparation for this possibility... until such time as 1906 (film) is verified as filming, I would support a redirect and merge of that article's content to here. Most of the work being done already. The caveat of course is that the redirect can be undone once this project begins filming. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss:[edit]

Pro[edit]

Support merge. We have a content fork here, and as per WP:NFF, "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." As we (now) have an article on the subject material, I see no reason to deviate from the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per the notability guidelines for future films. I believe that merging establishes a proper encyclopedic scope because this is an unstable topic. There is no guarantee of an actual film, so it is misleading to have a setup that purports one. I am also not in favor of a "film project" setup because it is continued shaky ground; the topic is not immutable. That is not something that we can say about articles in the rest of Wikipedia, which are based on established topics. The guidelines help establish the scope because despite movie news getting hyped and circulated, this does not mean the film industry will ultimately produce the films in development. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think we should wait for a few more editors' opinions here. I can see you guys are gung-ho for this merge, but some of us aren't. There is surely no problem with "Film project" as "notability is is not temporary" so we have nothing to fear from "continued shaky ground". Even if a film is eventually made it will remain a notably fraught film project. As (Rob Sinden) for a content fork, gee, if we copy an article into another article, well we have a fork, but that isn't necessarily a good reason for a merger. I remain interested in what uninvolved editors think of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the film were cancelled outright tomorrow, there would be no justification for a standalone page. I think that's the stance we should be coming from, as (as WP:NFF states) "there is no "sure thing" production". The content is not so weighty that it cannot be dealt with on the article "about its subject material", as also recommended at WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the film were canceled outright tomorrow, it would still have been a topic which was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability is not temporary. The film project is notable, whether or not the film is ever finished or even started. Pburka (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability may not be temporary, but as Erik points out to you below, WP:N says, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Therefore, if the film were cancelled tomorrow, the sensible option would be to merge, which is what we should be doing right now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Erik's comments above. At this point, there is no indication the film will be made. And, as this article already has all the film project information, the standalone article is simply repetition. If the film happens, the other article can easily be recreated. And this fretting about something being irretrievably lost is unwarranted. All the information will still be here, which is where it belongs, since the whole project is still only a possibility. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Con[edit]

Well, I have no special feelings about this either way, but given that the stalled film project a) existed; b) is of interest to many people; and crucially c) is reliably and multiply sourced, it's quite hard to see why a merge is needed. If the problem is that people are queasy about films-that-aren't, then the required action is to change the title to "(film project)" or something of that kind, and maybe to have a category like "film projects" too.

From the other end of the 'scope, both articles are of a reasonable size and structure, which would be muddied by plonking a great lump of film project stuff into the book article - one would reasonably expect just a sentence or two there about the film.

For these two reasons I Oppose the suggested merger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the film is already included in the novel article, so it wouldn't be a case of "plonking a great lump of film project stuff into the book article". As you state, the article is of a "reasonable size and structure", so there's no real necessity for a breakout article just yet, as it is already comfortably included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So a merge would be tantamount to outright deletion? Then I'm really opposed to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. All of the information will remain in the novel article, and will be preserved in the edit history of the film article until such time as a breakout article is warranted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of the project-specific inclusion criteria, especially when they're used to argue against inclusion. The WP:GNG are clear that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is the benchmark for inclusion. This topic clearly meets that standard. Therefore I oppose the merger. Pburka (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pburka, WP:N says, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Potential films in development are an unstable set of topics because there are two outlooks: 1) movie news is widely hyped and circulated at any given stage, and 2) the film industry only produces a small portion of films that they develop. Before the guidelines, there were constant assumptions that movie news (like the boarding of a director) absolutely meant that a film will be produced. It is understandable because it is indeed concrete news coverage, but that does not necessarily lend itself to a stand-alone article on an encyclopedia. I'm in favor of reporting the coverage (and have written my fair share of merged "Film adaptation" sections), but there is often a "driver" behind the excitement for such films. It's usually a famous book or a well-known director or both; these factors make plans for a film worth noting in the public eye. In addition, non-activity (in terms of developing a film) is generally not reported, so a stand-alone article cannot be historical in failed plans or honestly be about something tangible (the actual film). That gray area to me is a sign of a topic that is not immutable. If we do not know if the stand-alone topic will ever change from the collection of follow-along news coverage to treating "fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works" (WP:PLOT), it is not defined as one of enduring notability. Pardon my long-windedness, but the guidelines have existed for these reasons as not to exaggerate news into actual films and to maintain an encyclopedic presentation. There is no deletion here; I'm always in favor of reporting the project status but in the proper scope. If filming does begin, it is a near-definite sign of something tangible, and as I like to say, we can then have an article for the ages. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1906 (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1906_(novel)&oldid=1195886234"