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.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.


Perhaps it would be worthwhile to show Krasznahorkai's singular numbering of the chapters as shown in the book's table of contents, like so (I'm showing the titles in English but you get the idea):


I. The news that they are coming
II. We shall rise
III. To know something
IV. The work of the spider I (The blackened eight)
V. Comes unstitched
VI. The work of the spider II (Devilish bosoms, satan's tango)


VI. Irimiás makes a speech
V. Perspective, when from the front
IV. To go to heaven? To dream?
III. Perspective, when from behind
II. Only troubles, only work
I. The circle closes

--JanBielawski 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to create a separate article on the novel. Hoverfish Talk 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand why it's referred to here as "Satantango" without the diacritical marks. Surely if we're going to "romanise" the spelling we should go the whole hog and just refer to it as Satan's Tango. Opening with "Satantango (orig. Sátántangó)" seems utterly redundant to me. I think it should be:

  • Satan's Tango (Hungarian: Sátántangó) and referred to as Satan's Tango throughout the article
  • Sátántangó (Satan's Tango) and referred to as...well, you get the picture

None of this pandering "Satantango" business. Thoughts? Opinions? There's probably a style guide floating around somewhere for this, but for some reason I felt very strongly that this needed to be discussed. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the title "Satan's Tango" ever been used in an official release? I just checked on Amazon, and there is one DVD labeled with the original "Sátántangó," and one with "Satantango" like the article. So both seem to be equally official when it comes to home media. However I would also prefer it with the diacritical marks, and just save the one without them as a redirect. Smetanahue (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, there didn't seem to be any valid reason to keep it as it was. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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: No consensus. It seems to be accepted that the film is more widely known than the book. (It get six times as many page views in Wikipedia). So having the film be the primary topic is not ridiculous. There is not even a consensus on inclusion of the accents. They are not used consistently by English writings that refer to the book. They seem to be more common for the film. It's possible the book will get more famous with time. Its English translation only came out in 2012, though the book has been available in French since 2000. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated}}

– I don't think either is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, and the disambiguation by diacritic alone is clearly insufficient, as the book has the same title. At the same time, no real reason not to include the diacritics in the title for the article title for the novel - the Guardian has in this interview for example. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Are there any other meanings of the term? If not, WP:TWODABS applies, and disambiguation can be accomplished in a hatnote, discouraging the need to create unnecessary navigational pages. bd2412 T 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, and while I agree that the guideline at WP:TWODABS applies, I don't think we've correctly applied WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, so a disambiguation page is needed as is recommended. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I would merge these two articles, since they are merely different versions of the same work. I don't see why we need individual articles on every book and every film adapted from that book, when their content is scarce enough that they can comfortably be covered in a single article. bd2412 T 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the content of the film article was scarce, and an award-winning book surely merits its own article? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
One could say that the award-winning book deserves an articles wherein the film is a section of that article. The film is merely an adaptation of the book. bd2412 T 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find they are both notable in their own right. A merge does not benefit anyone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a move for the film. It appears that it's the current primary topic and a dab on this page to the novel is all that is needed (IMO). And def. don't merge the two. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The book's title is spelt without diacritics in all English-language editions. Smetanahue (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, was 50:50 on that, my main issue was whether we'd applied WP:PRIMARYTOPIC correctly, and whether we were disambiguating by diacritic alone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The film has 6.5 times the page views of the novel. It doesn't seem like a lot of people are ending up at the wrong place. Dekimasuよ! 16:13, 11 March 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.


I've moved them from the external links section of the article, per WP:NOTLINK, but could be useful for future expansion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


I've added a detailed description for the film. I hope you like it enough to keep it.-- (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)