Talk:Bon-Bon (short story)

A fact from Bon-Bon (short story) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,300 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Edgar Allan Poe's 1831 short story "Bon-Bon" features an amateur philosopher who meets a soul-eating devil?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/April.

Wikipedia

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

Really?

Does this really deserve its own article? Can't we focus on improving the quality of Poe articles that already exist before we start adding new ones? At this rate, we'll never have a Poe featured topic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's still here, we might as well do it right and get it up on the Did You Know? section of the main page. I'm going to expand this five-fold (as per the requirements now that it's over 5 days old) and nominate it. In the meantime, please don't add to the article (it'll just make my job harder to expand by 5x). Feel free to drop me suggestions on my talk page or here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm all for combining references as long as they're the same; but I'm not a fan of combining references that are similar but not the same. If one footnote is from, say, page 2, and another is from page 3, those two references shouldn't both say "pages 2-3" should they? I prefer specificity... nothing against the editor that made the changes. But if we're aiming for verifiability, I think this is stronger. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, adding in those cite templates was much appreciated. Nicely done! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2015

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: To be moved. Move requires admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bon-Bon → Bon-Bon (short story) – WP:SMALLDETAILS. Restore to title prior undiscussed move 3 November 2013. Readers today are overwhelmingly more likely to read the article about the Pitbull song "Bon, Bon" or "Bon Bon", than the story by Edgar Allan Poe about restaurateur Pierre Bon-Bon's visitation by the devil. Both subjects are occasionally rendered as "Bon Bon" only. See everything else at Bon Bon disambiguation page. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense. – nafSadh did say 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Also considering Bonbon (which the article also calls "bon-bon"), among the various other topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If nothing else, it clarifies the Poe story, regardless of other similarly titled articles. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Redirect to the dab page after the move -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Far too ambiguous. Personally, I'd think of the sweet! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support per the second paragraph of WP:SMALLDETAILS Red Slash 17:24, 28 March 2015 (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.

bad move

For the record, the above move is not supported by policy. The proposal claims it is based on WP:SMALLDETAILS, but that section of WP:AT specifically allows for small detailed differences in titles like the dash in Bon-Bon. The only exception "may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other." No evidence of one article meeting this criteria was provided, much less that this small detail disambiguation in this case is not sufficient (begging the question... not sufficient for what? It's a different title - how is that not sufficient?) --В²C ☎ 20:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been writing policy again? the section of WP:SMALLDETAILS looks new. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]