Talk:"B" Is for Burglar

ali&saede

salam hasrate cheshaye khisam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.186.144 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested multi-move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• "B" Is for Burglar → B Is for Burglar
• C Is for Corpse → C Is for Corpse
• "D" Is for Deadbeat → D Is for Deadbeat
• "E" Is for Evidence → E Is for Evidence
• "F" Is for Fugitive → F Is for Fugitive
• "G" Is for Gumshoe → G Is for Gumshoe
• "H" Is for Homicide → H Is for Homicide
• "J" Is for Judgment → J Is for Judgment
• "K" Is for Killer → K Is for Killer
• "L" Is for Lawless → L Is for Lawless

– I am omitting "A", I, and O from this request because they are vowels, but I'll request move on those after this is over. However, I'm putting E Is for Evidence here instead because E looks (and sounds) plausible without quote marks. Also, book cover of U Is for Undertow omits quote marks. Covers of later editions of above books omit quote marks, as well (also seen in author's web). As for WP:TITLEFORMAT, it says that there are exceptions. Even though first editions have quote marks, and policy doesn't discourage use of quote marks in official titles, I'm not convinced that containing them is convenient for searchers and typists. I tried news articles, but Google News Archive is down (as often), and current news sources don't trivially or significantly cover them. Google Books would contain primary sources, but there are too many web results. Therefore, (I've found recent news sources omitting quote marks, using Google Web and NewsBank) I'm using Amazon and Barnes & Noble as alternatives in this case. Good Reads omits quote marks. George Ho (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment George, the author's website has the quote marks on every title in the text description. This is what I'd take as authoritative. The illustrations of the initial letters on the covers, where they don't have quotes, are stylised images for the most part, or done for design reasons. In my opinion, all you've achieved with a zillion moves backwards and forwards, and altering the links at Kinsey_Millhone#Kinsey_Millhone_novels and Template:Sue Grafton, is a mess of confusion and inconsistency, for no benefit I can see. Even if consensus determines they should be removed (which I wouldn't personally agree with - they are her titles, that's clear) it at least needed to be discussed first and done in one go, consistently. Begoon ^talk 04:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope the research is adequate. I found news sources omitting quote marks on Wasted and on Alibi (one example). Also, H is used instead of "H" at Post-Gazette. Denver Post omits quote marks on Judgment. USA Today omits quote marks on Lawless and Quarry. Publishers Weekly omits quote marks. As for book covers, later editions have single letter in big and small sizes, omitting quote marks. How would cover design tarnish my logic and intentions? --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • LA Times omits quote marks on novels. Washington Post omits them. New York Times either uses or omits them, but newer sources begin to omit them ([1][2]), while older ones used them ([3][4]. Perhaps use NewsBank to search for fresher sources of this decade, like Associated Press. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah - you've done a lot of research, all of which indicates that different sources use different styles, and sometimes inconsistently. That doesn't mean we need to be inconsistent too.

The titles on the author's site are what I'd default to, as the authority on her own books, in those circumstances.

You can have a discussion about whether our style says we should omit the quotes - I won't be joining that, but my preference would be that we defer to the author's style and leave them in. Especially because, as you've spotted, things like "A" and "I" are going to be problematic/inconsistent without them...

None of that diminishes my point that moving them this way and that and altering the article links/templates without consistency or consensus was not the best idea.

That's about all the opinion I have - I'll defer to others now, who may, obviously, agree or disagree with me. . Begoon ^talk 06:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as, while some sources may sometimes omit the marks, the primary authoritative source for these titles uses them consistently and no reader is served by a hodgepodge of title formatting because some copyeditor at the Los Angeles Times sometimes mistakenly leaves them out. Let's avoid the sort of Star Trek into/Into Darkness drama that wasted countless editing hours and made Wikipedia a global punchline. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That editor of LA Times probably left them out on purpose just to type fast and because it looks more logical without quote marks. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The alleged laziness of a random copyeditor is not a valid criteria for changing the official published title of a best-selling novel. - Dravecky (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an official name may not have to be a current title. Oh, as I told you, recent printings of the above books omit quote marks. But you can argue what Begoon said in terms of design. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and also recommend that the undiscussed moves Geroge made of other titles in the series be reverted. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why else opposing this proposal? Are the sources flawed? Are book covers of unlisted novels inadequate or less reliable? --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment George, if, after it's been pointed out to you by experienced users and sysops that the correct titles are clearly listed on the author's own page, and that you made an awful mess by buggering about with this without discussing it, understanding it, or having any good reason to mess with it (other than you felt like it), you still don't get it, then that is very worrying for someone as active as you are, and want to be, in moving things around. Just my opinion. Begoon ^talk 19:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: the proper titles for these books through "O" have always been with the letter in quotes: the book covers and insides are quite clear. It looks like when she switched from Holt to Putnam's after "O", the new publisher decided not to use the quotes. That doesn't change the original titles for the first 15 books, however, and they should not be moved but remain as they are. If other titles have been moved despite the original titles ("M" and "N" aren't listed), I support the reversion of them as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The title, in text, for every single one of them, "A" to "W", on the author's own website, uses the quotes. Really, I don't see why we need to look any further than that to decide what the "correct titles" are.

If wikipedia wants to impose some style thing where we don't use the quotes despite what the titles are then that's a separate issue, leading inevitably to the "global punchline" comments so aptly referenced above.

Frankly, I don't see the possibility for much valid discussion as to what the "real" title is when it's there on the author's site, so any discussion seems to me to be about whether we think we should change them. I don't. Unless of course we think her site is "wrong" in some way? I suppose it could be... Maybe she's made a mistake, and doesn't realise what she "should" be calling them. If so, perhaps we need to educate her?

Sorry if that seems snarky, but I really can't believe the amount of discussion that an erroneous series of moves, unmoves and misunderstanding causes here. And we wonder why people laugh...Begoon ^talk 21:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem snarky, and not germane to the current move discussion. I'm more interested in their title as originally published, under which the bulk of the sales for the various books were made. I personally prefer the consistency as Grafton has them on her website's "alphabet series" page (continue as you've begun), although even on her own pages she isn't quite consistent: the home page is without the quotes, and that isn't the only place that they're absent. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh... I hadn't noticed her home page omits them. That does knock the wind out of my argument a bit, when her site is even inconsistent itself. I'd stopped at seeing how they were listed on the "alphabet" page since that looked pretty clear to me, particularly as the arguments appeared to be largely about cover illustrations and how other sources referred to them, rather than authoritative sources from the author/publisher(s). My sense of neatness, like your (continue as you begun), was happy with that. Now that does raise the possibility that later ones are marketed and referred to differently by her and her publisher. It is germane, to my mind, by the way, because that same sense of neatness would want us to deal with "all" the books in one discussion, not just the ones listed.

Digging deeper, ISBN records at LOC suggest a later change, at T: ..."M", "N", "O", "P", "Q", "R", "S", --- then T, U, V, W, but it's clear there is a change there, even if I'd prefer there wasn't, and I apologise for not doing that "digging" earlier and trusting the one listing page.

Seems, if you look at this LOC search (if that times out I found you need to click new search and enter "Grafton Sue"), the later editions are being changed - "A" for instance being listed as "A" in 1982 and 2001, then A in 2008 - "C" in 1986 then C in 2012, suggesting all reprints may be done this way by the new publisher from around 2007. That's messy, then, but I agree we shouldn't be moving the earlier ones, leaving them at the originally published title where the sales were made. Looks like I can't always have neatness and correctness at once... Mea culpa - sorry. Begoon ^talk 02:51, 8 October 2013 (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.

Article needs a Review section, Character list, to add to the Awards section

This article has a decent Plot summary, and Awards, yet needs a Reviews section and a list of Characters. Titles are in place for the two sections. Reviews can usually be found on line. I suggest checking Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly as well as newspapers. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)