Talk:Clara in Blunderland

Novels: Fantasy / 19th century Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

The 2010 cover[edit]

To me the fact that the book is in print today is notable. I don't see a good reason for the 2010 cover to be deleted. I have asked the deleter for some sort of helpful advice regarding the licence. -- Evertype·✆ 20:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

@162 etc.: I'm a little puzzled by your edit summary here. You're right that the title of Clara in Blunderland is unambiguous, but hatnotes in the {{distinguish}} family are precisely for cases where no ambiguity exists, but confusion may still occur (if the title was ambiguous, something like {{about}} would be appropriate instead). In this case, it seems very plausible that, at the minimum, someone might confuse a 1902 political parody novel called Clara in Blunderland with a 1907 political parody novel called Alice in Blunderland. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How so? "Alice" and "Clara" are quite distinct words. I'll note that the documentation at Template:Distinguish states that "This hatnote is generally used when readers have misspelled their desired title". 162 etc. (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed distinct words, but with the exception of those words this book and Alice in Blunderland: An Iridescent Dream seem to be alike in almost every respect: published at around the same time, parodying the same work, responding to similar political themes and using the same pun in the title. I'm obviously not claiming that a reader will be looking for one book, suffer a slip of the fingers and end up typing "Clara" instead of "Alice" (or vice versa). Rather, I'm acknowledging that fallible humans sometimes err or misremember and that there's encyclopaedic value in helping to mitigate that in cases where it seems especially likely. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've again removed the hatnote. Per the template documentation, "The "distinguish" template produces a hatnote to point out to our readers the existence of one or more articles whose title(s) is, or are, similar to the page in question." "Alice" and "Clara" are not similar. 162 etc. (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me – a response to what I wrote above would've been ideal, but it's better than nothing. If your objection is to the use of {{distinguish}} specifically, then what do you think of using a different hatnote template as a possible solution? The documentation for {{about}} suggests it can be used in a wider range of circumstances to lin[k] the reader to other articles with similar titles or concepts that they may have been seeking instead. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a hatnote is necessary at all. Different titles, different authors. Clearly, you don't share that opinion. I think we both have made valid arguments, and neither of us is necessarily "wrong"; perhaps other editors can join the discussion to determine a consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced that we both have made valid arguments: I think a valid argument is one that's consistent (i.e. doesn't first make an argument about a particular template and its documentation, then move the goalposts to object to a hatnote per se) and responds to what's being argued against (i.e. doesn't just repeat the same points when faced with new evidence). I do agree that other editors' perspectives would be useful; I'll make a request at WP:3O to try to expedite that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I object to a hatnote. This all started when I removed the hatnote, and you reverted it. And if I'm repeating myself, how is that inconsistent? Rhetorical question, by the way; I'll let other editors take it from here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

In my opinion, the hatnote improves the article. Sure, the two books are not similar in content. However the titles are arguably possible to confuse readers. The reverted hatnote also does not appear to constitute an improper use. In summary, adding the hatnote appears to help the article and does no harm. Removing the hatnote does not help the article but also does no harm. So, on balance the proposed hatnote should be reinstated MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MaxnaCarta. @162 etc.: can we treat this as a provisional consensus? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]