Talk:Ill Met by Moonlight (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.
 

Split proposal[edit]

Until two months ago, this article was about the film, but now its focus is on the book, and the film section has been pushed down so far down the page that many won't notice it, although it's one of the classic British war films. An article about the book is very worthwhile, but it should be made as a separate article, linked to the film article.

Although it would be more logical to hand over this article title to the book and and create a new article called Ill Met By Moonlight (film), in this case I advocate the opposite for three reasons:

  • 1) the film is so much more well-known than the book
  • 2) the talk page mainly deals with the film
  • 3) the existing two links to Spanish and Italian Wiki are links to articles about the film - and one can assume that any further language links will be the same, as it's doubtful that this book has ever been translated into any other languages, due to its very specialised content.

I could just do this split myself, but as I haven't been involved in this article previously (I just stumbled across it when looking up information about the film, and became rather confused when I ended up in an article about a book with no reference to the film - until I scrolled down and found it further down) and as there are some people currently very active in editing this article, I prefer to just suggest the split.

Once done, the two articles could be headed by the following two templates:

  • At the top of this article:
  • At the top of the book article:

Cheers! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a film without the book having been written, so I think this article should stay as the book. Most of the material for the film could be split off for the film, and titled the usual way for a film adapted from the book. Name (film).Parkwells (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has primary topic guidelines to follow. The primary topic is supposed to be the one that readers are most likely to seek out in a search for the term. There are some situations where the book is enduring in popularity, and the book is adapted into a film, in which case the book can be the primary topic and the film can be a secondary topic. However, there are also situations where there are popular films based on relatively obscure books, in which case the film is the primary topic and the book is a secondary topic. This article was about the film from December 2004 up to May 2011, at which point an editor converted it to be about both the book and the film. I think that the article's longevity as a film article means that the primary topic is the film, and we should treat the book as a secondary topic, having coverage about the printed work at Ill Met by Moonlight (book). We can also review article traffic statistics and do search engine tests to validate this further. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In my extensive contributions to the article I followed the model of War and Peace with book given primacy and the film as the adaptation. Furthermore the book is still in continual print and is likely to republished even further having been republished yet again in 2010 in the USA. The book is also currently in print in the UK and in Greece and has been the subject of almost continous reprint for 60 years - it is one of the classic historical SOE operations of the Second World War and still well know. It was the subject of extensive worldwide comment recently linked to the death of Sir Patrick Leigh Fermor, the book being mentioned in many obituaries in passing. The film page was created early on Wiki, well before all the numerous wider Wikipedia entries relating to the Kreipe operation and the life of Moss were created, linked to the famous piece of history. There are extensive memorials to the operation in Crete and displays in the Heraklion museum. The Book is closely based on the contemporaneous wartime diary of Moss, a copy of which is held in the archive of the Imperial War Museum London. The film is very much subsidiary to the historical significance of the military events recorded in the diary and then published in the book. It is perhaps also relevant to note that, whilst entertaining in its genre, the film is historically inaccurrate in respect of the abduction operation. On a final note, when I first amended the page, I suggested a split and was informed by editors that this was not appropriate. I agree with that view and that of Parkwells Huguº 22:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We cannot compare this book to War and Peace, which is a definite classic. Its article has been around since 2002. So under the primary topic guidelines, the War and Peace article is like a immovable rock because it has major educational value. The issue is grayer when it comes to less familiar works. For example, Road to Perdition is the primary topic where its source material Road to Perdition (comics) is a secondary topic. Regarding the split itself, I think it was a technical discussion. A given topic should retain its page history. For example, if its article needs a new name, then we do not copy the content into the empty space of that new article. That would mean only one line in the page history. So instead, we should move the article, and all of its page history, to the new space. So let's say everyone supported making the book the primary topic. You would move the article to Ill Met by Moonlight (film). When this happens, Ill Met by Moonlight will redirect there. That redirect can be changed into the book article. But in this case, I think that the book article should be secondary, and since it does not have much of a page history as the film does, we can start a new article. Being a secondary topic isn't lesser per se; it's just that readers are more likely to be looking for the film. The film article can link to the book article; it is just one extra click after coming here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just surfed onto this page having watched the film, so expected this article to be about the film; I had no idea there was a book. For what it's worth I'd vote for changing this article to be about the film - specially if there's a history of it being a primarily film article, and other wikis link to this as the film - and creating a new article for the book.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say to that then isn't it good to learn from an electronic encyclopedia what the true origins of the film are and the real history and the book behind it?!! There are many Wiki pages that refer directly to the book which direct to this page as Ill Met by Moonlight. I do not mind if it really must be split - athough I can't see why, if other books are dealt with by internal reference to film adaptation, this one can't as well. What I do feel very strongly is that the words Ill Met by Moonlight must lead to the book. Parkwells suggests Ill Met by Moonlight (film) for a page on the film as this makes clear the point of adaptation. It also significant that when the film was launched it was given the quite different name Night Ambush for wider release. So again the true pedigree of Ill Met by Moonlight is the book. The fact is that the Kreipe Operation was one of the most successful SOE operations that is remembered. Frankly a jolly film as the primary Wiki reference to this operation does no credit to anyone in my view nor to the purpose of Wikipedia - to dessimnate and share accurate knowledge worldwide. The implication of the logic of using the age of a Wiki page as the guiding principle is that old knowledge/information on Wiki is more important that new knowledge which seems absurd to me especially if new knowledge is adding to the quality and understanding of old knowldge. Huguº 18:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Repairing Links[edit]

Now that you've split them, are you going to repair the links for everything that linked to Ill Met by Moonlight as the film? -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Huguº (talk · contribs) and Parkwells (talk · contribs), can you please repair the links? You can see them here. They link to Ill Met by Moonlight for the film article, but since it is moved, these articles should now link to Ill Met by Moonlight (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've done all the ones I could find, but someone else should check them -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help - I shall look through but may take me a few days as away Huguº 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Link to Discussion Page[edit]

How come the link to the Discussion page from Ill Met by Moonlight takes you to the Discussion page for Ill Met by Moonlight (film)? Shouldn't they now have separate discussion pages? -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be fixed now, thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about a name[edit]

There have been a few edits to the article recently changing the position of the nickname for W. Stanley Moss. I think that the question is really, what is his surname? Is it just "Moss" or is it "Stanley Moss". Even though it isn't hyphenated, a person can still have a surname made up of two (or more) names. See Double-barrelled name. If his surname is "Moss" then the name should be given as W. Stanley "Billy" Moss. But if his surname is "Stanley Moss" then it should be given as W. "Billy" Stanley Moss -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve: I agree with that. I'll do a little digging to see if I can determine what the surname is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked in Talk:W. Stanley Moss as well -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Nothting absolutely definitive yet, but some compelling evidence:
  • A Google search on "Moss, W. Stanley" returned more relevant hits than one on "Stanley Moss, W."
  • This book, Intelligence and espionage: an analytical bibliography lists him as "Moss, W. Stanley".
  • Bowker's Books in Print for 1959, a standard reference work, lists him as "Moss, W. Stanley".
  • 2,848 other books listed in Google Books used the same form [1], whereas only 4 used "Stanley Moss, W." [2] and at least two of them had it in hyphenated form, which I don't believe is correct.
That may not be enough to settle the debate, but it does seem (to me at least) to be enough to leave it in this article as "W. Stanley ("Billy") Moss" until evidence to the contrary arises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've dropped a pointer to this discussion on Talk:Ill Met by Moonlight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The British Library doesn't help. They list him as Moss, W. Stanley for some books and Stanley Moss, W. for other books, or for other editions of the same book. But just Moss as a surname seems to predominate -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
His surname was definitely Moss and Stanley was a family name and not a surname so I guess the name becomes IWS "Billy/Bill" Moss? Huguº 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ill Met by Moonlight (film). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ill Met by Moonlight (film). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)