Talk:Quatrefoil: A Modern Novel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 10 November 2017

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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Quatrefoil: A Modern Novel → Quatrefoil (novel) – Subsequent releases used just "Quatrefoil": 1957 UK ed, 1951 US paperback, 1982 US reprint, 1991 reprint, etc. The Kindle eBook uses the current title. However, more recent secondary sources use just "Quatrefoil", like this one, that one, and that one. George Ho (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment isn't the current title just WP:NATURALDAB ? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• WP:NATURALDAB also says, "also commonly called in English reliable sources". Very few recent sources use the current title, so it's less common than "Quatrefoil". --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• @George Ho and 70.51.45.76: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, since the current title does in fact fulfill NATURALDAB. George Ho's counter that it's not the most common name is faulty; it is confusing WP:COMMONNAME with NATURALDAB. A commonly used name is not synonymous with the most commonly used name, or we would not have two provisions about this; every NATURALDAB would automatically be the COMMONNAME. There's no shortage of sources using the full name of the novel [1]; it's simply not common in news sources, because journalism is driven by the need to compress material to fit in small columns and within a page. This highlights the reason to do multiple searches when trying to assess commonness. PS: I would also bet money that some if not all of the later editions do in fact use the full name, inside on the frontispiece, and simply not on the cover. The cover doesn't actually determine the title (if it did, then AC/DC's album Back in Black would be known as [Untitled] or something, because it has no name on the cover at all). See also The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, which few if any editions have in full on the cover. The title is that longer name and our article prose gets this right (we use the short The Hobbit as our article title per WP:COMMONNAME, and no disambiguation is needed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and WP:SUBTITLE which recommends using short subtitles for disambiguation when necessary and available. Station1 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.