Talk:Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Acts of War

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of War → Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Acts of War —

— matches other Tom Clancy franchise novels, such as Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Fallout, etc; the other novel in the series with an article is prefaced with "Op-Center:" (Op-Center: Mirror Image) — Relisting. – Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.29.209.121 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Comment This was originally requested uncontroversial move which Anthony Appleyard converted to this discussion here. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. The inclusion of Clancy's name seems to me to be a marketing exercise, rather than part of the novel's title as most would understand it. I do however feel that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) isn't helpful on this particular matter, and could perhaps do with some work. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many of the Tom Clancy franchise books articles already have "Tom Clancy" in the article titles. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See reply elsewhere. This discussion should have remained centralised IMO, as we seem to be discussing the same issues... why have multiple copies of the same strings? Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' there are *many* other uses for "Acts of War" which has nothing to do with this book. This should not reside at the primary name in any case, since it should redirect to casus belli, which is what a normal person would expect to be at such a title. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, replied elsewhere to an almost identical comment. Basically, we have disambiguation conventions, and should follow them. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the name of the book on the book's own cover, disambiguation convention says that's a good name to use, since it is the actual name, and avoids parenthetical disambiguation, which is never the actual name. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could we centralise this discussion please? I've replied to an almost identical comment at Talk:Runaway (novel), and my reply here would be identical to that there. Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The issue with this novel's title is different from that of Runaway's, since that one is about conflicts with other novels, whereas this one conflicts with things that aren't novels as well. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 2 reasons: 1)It's the name of the book (which is reason alone) and 2)It's very likely that someone would be looking for Act of War (which redirects to Casus belli) and types Acts of War by mistake. TJ Spyke 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are too many diverging links related to act of war. act of war links to Casus belli, Act of War links here and acts of war links to the disambig. page. Acts of war. Suggest be redirected to Acts of war. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support Op-Center: Acts of War.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.