This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
There is no explicit source for the claim that the book was banned by the nazi regime, and the German version of the article suggests otherwise ("verramscht" means that the remaining stock is liquidated at below-cost price).--Lieven Smits (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
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: Moved. The supporters are more numerous, though both sides had reasonable arguments. I was struck by the OP's remark that the name of the ritual is spelled in different ways. When the spelling is variable anyway, chosing one variant of the name to indicate the novel, per WP:DIFFCAPS is putting a lot of weight on minor details. Evidently the English-speaking world has not settled on a fixed spelling for the ritual itself. It it were my decision I would spell our article on the ritual as Auto de fe as it is in the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias. I.e. get rid of both the caps and the hyphens and use the modern form of 'de.' But that question could be debated elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Auto-da-Fé → Auto-da-Fé (novel) – The title of this novel is spelled variously as Auto da Fé (, , ) and Auto-da-Fé (, , ). The current title is somewhat confusing as it is too similar with the title of the article Auto-da-fé (only difference is the capitalization of one "F"). The novel is named after the Auto-da-fé ritual, and both can be spelled in few different ways. So, I think that this one letter capitalization is not enough to disambiguate two topics. I propose we move this article to Auto-da-Fé (novel), and redirect cuurent title to Auto-da-fé (disambiguation). Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - nom is right, while Red meat/Red Meat might work for English terms it doesn't work for a book title which isn't in English (although this is the English title of Die Blendung). But no need for the hyphens - -, should be Auto da Fé (novel) per Amazon covers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I added the cover of the first English edition, and it shows hyphenated title. So, I think we still need hyphens. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would the 1946 English edition be our reference point? This isn't what people will buy/read today. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The 1946 cover is certainly preferred for the infobox, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Images which reads in part If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition. I'm not sure how consistently this principle is applied in other areas, however. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes, too easily confused, especially as the original can also be spelled with a capital "F". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The capitalization distinguishes the articles adequately per WP:DIFFCAPS. The already existing hat notes at both articles will get readers where they want to go.--Cúchullaint/c 14:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:DIFFCAPS isn't applicable since so many other things on the Auto-da-fé (disambiguation) also have caps. If WP:DIFFHYPHEN existed that wouldn't apply either for the same reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
DIFFCAPS certainly is applicable unless this isn't the primary topic among the articles that capitalize Auto-da-Fé. However, that's not borne out by the evidence. It wins out big time in both page views and Google Books hits compared to the ambiguous articles; see my comment below.--Cúchullaint/c 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Relisting comment Two questions have been raised in this RM: whether the title needs disambiguation and whether it needs hyphens. New input would be welcome, of course, but editors who have already participated in the discussion that haven't weighed in on both questions may want to do so as well. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support It needs disambiguation. That the original "Auto-da-fé" article has a lower caps is not itself writ in stone, but a purely stylistic choice of Wikipedia. It can equally well be spelled "Auto-da-Fé" ("Act of Faith"), as it often is, with no change in meaning.Walrasiad (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
To answer the question, I think the hyphens should be kept. They seem to be used in the best sources and translations. Some of the works I've found include Donahue's book The End of Modernism: Elias Canetti's Auto-da-Fé, this article by Kristie Foell, David Darby's Structures of Disintegration, and Dagmar Lorenz's "Transatlantic Perspectives on Men, Women, and Other Primates". There are of course exceptions, and this uses both, but I think the general preference is to use them. For translations, the D.V. Wedgewood appears to be the best one, and it uses the hyphens.
Die Blendung seems to be becoming more common in sources, but I don't see evidence that it's more common than the traditionally used title Auto-da-Fé (and both are more common than The Tower of Babel). To reiterate, I also oppose the move as it seems to me this novel is the primary topic of capitalized "Auto-da-Fé". It received 34,229 views in 90 days compared to 1398 for Auto Da Fe (the new age band now at Auto Da Fé (band)) and 331 for Auto-da-Fé (short story). "Auto-da-Fé" Canetti returns 11,900 Google Books returns compared to 3550 for "Auto-da-Fé" band and 533 for "Auto-da-Fé" Zelazny. None of the other entries even have articles, and wouldn't challenge this well-known novel even if they did.
I doubt all that many people are searching for the general topic of auto-da-fé by capitalizing it this way; if they manage to type in "Auto-da-Fé" it's likely they're searching for a proper name, and this novel is easily the most common of those. Again, hat notes will readers where they want to go in the easiest fasion.--Cúchullaint/c 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if they Google they'll add "book" "Canetti" or "Germany" when Googling
If they use RH top search they're in trouble, how anyone could find the book given our present titling I don't know.
I am a little disconcerted by the "wins out in page views" comment above, as I don't know how to search by cap F on Grok.se.
I tried inputting with F, but grok.se keeps ignoring the book and giving the primary topic, the Spanish Inquisition.
Does anyone know how to produce a grok se for the book? I would have thought Die Blendung would get about 2-3x the hits of Crowds and Power, but less than the bio. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Still cannot do it. User:Cuchullain you said "big time in both page views compared to the ambiguous articles" - how did you get a grok.se reading for the capitalised Auto-da-Fé without grok.se defaulting to Auto-da-fé and what was the number? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it it shows the same results for both capitalizations, I don't know which one it's actually pulling. Unless someone can find a way to get the accurate page view statistics, I'll pull my objection to the move. If the page views continue to be much higher for the book than the other two options after the move (as the Google Book search already shows) we can discuss restoring it then.--Cúchullaint/c 17:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support. I'm the one who made the WP:DIFFCAPS redirect as well as the one who made WP:DIFFHYPHEN a redirect at In ictu oculi's joking suggestion (with my tongue firmly in cheek). But when we're dealing with different languages which have different capitalization practices, things get more complicated. And it doesn't seem that this novel is anywhere NEAR as important as the original concept and not significantly more noteworthy than the rest of the stuff on the disambiguation page. I like DIFFCAPS alright, but this is not an applicable place for it. RedSlash 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I also want to point out that both Auto da Fé and Auto da Fe currently redirect to Auto-da-fé which is very confusing. Those two are closer to the novel than to the ritual. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:29, 12 January 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.