Talk:The Shape of Water (novel)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 7 March 2018

Fair use rationale for Image:Theshapeofwater.jpg edit

 

Image:Theshapeofwater.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Detail edit

The Shape of water is given as both the first novel and the first of the TV series. It is indeed the first novel both by publication date and internal chronology. However it was the third of the TV series according to IMDB, season 2 number 1. --80.254.147.252 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 7 March 2018 edit

The following is a closed 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: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



– My apologies for the amount of entries requested on this move. I was inspired to request this move because of the ongoing discussion at Talk:The Shape of Water (film)#Requested move 5 March 2018 and because the deletion request discussion looks like this article will not be deleted. I was originally just going to request this move for the first book, but there is an article for each book in the Inspector Montalbano series, and if I change one, I have to change the others. I realize some are short and may not be notable on Wikipedia in general, but that can be dealt with after this move discussion. "The Voice of the Violin (film)", "August Heat (short story)", and "The Potter's Field (Peters novel)" are unrelated to the series, but have the same names as two of the novels, and they should be moved to their respective new titles if this move comes to pass. In addition, it seems that the original titles for each book are the Italian titles, as the author is Italian, so English titles are not completely necessary in this case. JE98 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. These books have been published in the English-speaking world under their English-language titles and we would not title The Shape of Water (novel) as La forma dell'acqua any more than we would title The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as Män som hatar kvinnor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose all particularly @JE98: sorry but nominating The Potter's Field (Peters novel) → The Potter's Field , and The Voice of the Violin (film), indicates that you do not understand how titling works on Wikipedia. We do not disambiguate against other titles, but against the real world. Please see WP:AT and WP:DAB, No offence, but this is basic. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose all - Per others, the books were published under those titles in English.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH since the reliable sources indicating notability of the first novel use its English-language title pretty extensively. That means this does not apply: "If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Per the above. But there's not harm in creating the redirects back to the English page titles. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I do not understand the need to change the title of the article about the novel by Ellis Peters, The Potter's Field (Peters novel). The novels are distinct with their present title, the other being The Potter's Field (Camilleri novel). The titles are distinct now, I see no need for this change. Changing the titles of the articles about the Camilleri novels to Italian in English Wikipedia does not make any sense either. This is not like the decision once made about the article about the book, The Little Prince, whose original title is in French, while the Wikipedia article is titled in English. All this because a film won the Oscar and has a title that is NOT based on an earlier novel with the same title, very odd. There is a disambiguation page for the phrase, The Potter's Field which includes links to both novels, among other articles. In ictu oculi seems to understand the Wikipedia mechanics of this better than I do, and comes to the same conclusion. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per published-in-English comments above, and particular opposition for shifting "Potter's Field" around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Neutral / weak oppose moving to Italian titles, but those English titles could become disambiguation pages if enough people want them to. There'd need to be a separate subsequent discussion probably. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.