Talk:The Skin We're In (film)

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article on book[edit]

@Bearcat: Thanks very much for creating this article back in June. I've drafted a short article on Desmond Cole's book of the same name. I was wondering if you thought it would be better to include that content as a new section in this article or to start a new article on the book. I'm not entirely sure how closely related they are—same title, but the book was released this year and the film back in 2017. Would welcome any thoughts you might have. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would be to keep the articles separate — they're obviously related enough to crosslink each other for informational purposes, but my instinct would be that they're too different to simply be merged into one article: I wasn't able to find as many sources about the film as I would have liked, but the ones I have found suggest that the film is primarily about the history of anti-black racism in Canada, while the book appears to mainly be about 2017 in particular (which the film mostly can't be, as it aired in March 2017 and the book touches on an awful lot of things that happened after March.) So they're obviously meant as connected projects that tie into each other, but the book isn't simply a transcript of the film per se.
I also fully expected that there would likely be an article about the book in place by the fall — there's no question that it's one of the, if not the the, most significant and talked-about Canadian non-fiction books published this year, and I'll be shocked if it doesn't score a GG nomination when those come out — but having not read it yet I wasn't prepared to immediately tackle an article about it at the same time as I tackled the film. But we don't preemptively disambiguate article titles in anticipation of future topics that don't already have articles yet, we wait until the other article does exist before we reconsider what is or isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
So what I'd do is move your draft to a disambiguated title (i.e. The Skin We're In (book)) — since neither one has a clear primary topic claim over the other, once that article's in place I'll happily then move this to The Skin We're In (film), and convert the plain title to a disambiguation page, and then we can add a bit of information to each article that crosslinks the other article. But I don't think merging them both into one article is necessary or warranted — they're related but not identical topics that both have independent notability claims under different SNGs, so they should be handled as two articles. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense—that was my thinking as well. I'll develop the draft a bit and move to The Skin We're In (book) shortly. Thanks for your detailed response! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]