Talk:The Heiress (1786 play)

Requested move 28 November 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close: to prevent discussion fragmentation, as Woodensuperman has opened an RFC into the naming convention. No prejudice against speedy renomination on the closure of the RFC.(closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Plays and other literary works are covered by WP:NCBOOKS, and WP:BOOKDAB states that the author's surname should be used if further disambigution is needed, not year. --wooden superman 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support plays are primarily books and remembered as books not films, they have an author, and no particular year. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Discographer at the Dracula (1924 play) RM - a play is something people watch or hear, not a book. And per most understandable form, for example, if somehow this passes then when listed on a template it would still be described as "1786 play" and not "Burgoyne play". If this question is incorrectly covered or mentioned in the guideline then the guideline should remove the work 'play' because the actual guideline criteria reads "This is a naming conventions guideline for the naming of Wikipedia articles about books, which includes printed books and e-books." Printed books. Not plays. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And look at the other criteria in the lede of the guideline. It specifically separates plays from books and puts plays in the same category as films and paintings: "The titles of books (usually meaning the title of the literary work contained in the book) are capitalized by the same convention that governs other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A printed book? You mean like this one? Or this one? --wooden superman 11:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: you may have missed as not pinged, Wooden Superman has linked the printed books. The fact is that this title is wrong, plays have author dab, whether the guideline makes it clear (I think it does) or not. A year is irrelevant and these titles are outliers, see Antigone (Brecht) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A play put into book form is not the play, just like a film script in book form is not the film. They are a written guide as to how to present the primary - the play or the film. An example would be if a book is written on how to perfectly duplicate the Mona Lisa in paint, including what canvas to use, which paints to obtain, and how to apply each brushstroke. Same thing. A rose by any other name is not a rose on Wikipedia (it is a redirect). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if disambiguation was necessary, you think it should be Mona Lisa (1503 painting) rather than Mona Lisa (da Vinci painting), yes? --wooden superman 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per Randy Kryn above. --Discographer (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not clear that WP:NCBOOKS covers plays. WP:NCDAB says "If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any". Unfortunately, other plays sometimes use years and sometimes authors. WP:NCOPERA uses just the composer's name. WP:NCFILM uses years. In some cases, such as Shakespeare or Shaw, it makes sense to use the playwright. In other cases, where the authors are not as well known and the dates are far apart, like here, use of years might be slightly more recognizable to readers. If not moved, the proposed names should be created as redirects. Station1 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOKDAB says "To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(short story collection)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", "(poem)", "(poetry collection)", etc." --wooden superman 09:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something like '(1786 play) or '(1947 play)'? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it then goes on to say "If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses". --wooden superman 11:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of the guideline which BOOKDAB is a part of lists 'plays' in other works (not books) along with 'films' and 'paintings'. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an inconsistency there, but that's about capitalization. The part of the guideline that deals with disambiguation specifically mentions plays within its scope. --wooden superman 12:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the inconsistency is in the lede, which 'guides' the entire guideline, maybe these RM's should be put on hold and an RfC put up at the guideline page to solve this discrepancy. It seems some editors think of plays as being in the same realm of art as films and paintings, and others see them as a book. The lede actually says "other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc." Could be an interesting discussion, and probably a needed one before these RM's should move forward. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. RFC on scope of WP:NCBOOKS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#RFC: Does this guideline cover plays and other literary works? --wooden superman 10:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per aboves. Calidum 04:26, 5 December 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.