Talk:Thank You for Smoking (novel)

Novels 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.

Move

As requested at WP:RM I have moved this from Thank You For Smoking (novel) to Thank You for Smoking (novel). Since there was prior history under this page name, i ahve restored it. This may mean that the history now mixes revisons edited under the two distinct page names, and that diffs may not be fully accurate if succive revisons are from the origianlly separate histories. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thank You For Smoking cover.jpg

Image:Thank You For Smoking cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved per discussion. There is not consensus for the suggested move, nor for the suggested dab page experiment. It might make sense to reconsider this question at some time after the recentism has died down a bit more. - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– This originally wasn't an issue, since the book name was at an incorrect title and therefore there was no need for disambiguation. At this point, however, the book's page title has been corrected. With most adaptive works where the film had the same name as the source novel, the novel remains the primary topic. Obviously there are exceptions, such as when the film is something like the godfather and far outshines the book, but this is obviously not the case here. In this case, the book was highly acclaimed and from a renowned author, and while the film was certainly well reviewed, it in no way should be supplanting this as the primary topic. Page views don't really help here, since anyone looking for the book will most likely end up directed to the page for the film first. We want to be careful to avoid WP:RECENTISM here; yes, when a film comes out it usually gets a big burst of coverage, but that doesn't diminish the book's standing. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — The film is based on the book. Seems like a no brainer to me. ℥^nding·start 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Novels upon which films are based are not automatically the primary topic. The novel had 24357 hits in 2010 versus 279313 hits in 2010 for the film. Now, recentism could be a factor, as well as the film being at the undisambiguated title, but I'm not sure even that would explain a 10× difference in traffic. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would. Almost everyone who came to the novel's page by search probably had to come through the film's page. Also, less pages link here (there's usually far more interest in maintaining and improving film articles than book articles. While the page may be the one getting more attention, it doesn't mean it should be the primary topic. The film article for Lord of the Rings gets far more views than the books; would you ever argue that the books should not be the primary?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could start typing "Thank You for Smoking" and see one of the options being "(novel)" and choose that one if that's what they're looking for. In any case, with no policy or guideline favoring original works over derivative, we shouldn't promote an article with 10× less traffic to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You could make a case for putting a disambiguation page at Thank You for Smoking, and then seeing what the traffic looks like in a few months. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could, but that certainly doesn't always happen. Hell, even when the book is the primary the film usually gets more views; it's only natural that when the film is the primary it's on a much greater scale. --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's hard to tell, so I think the best thing to do would be to put a disambiguation page at Thank You for Smoking instead. I could support this. In a few months we can determine if further moves are warranted. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'd probably be in agreement with you on that. Do you think I should start a discussion on that first, or would it likely be unopposed, in which case I'd just make the disambiguation page myself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)That being said, there's still the issue of the incoming links. Wikipedia in general has far wider coverage of films, filmographies, actors, celebrities, etc than of books (this isn't a criticism, just a statement). In all likelihood, the film will still get more views (as I said, even when the book is the primary, like with Lord of the Rings or V for Vendetta, the film still gets more hits). But hopefully it will mitigate enough of the disparity to make the originally requested move seem more reasonable to those that oppose it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend closing this move request (directions here), creating the page Thank You for Smoking (disambiguation), and then starting a new request to move Thank You for Smoking to Thank You for Smoking (film) and Thank You for Smoking (disambiguation) to Thank You for Smoking. Alternatively and probably faster, you could just say in this RM that you support the disambiguation page instead and the closing admin should see that and do accordingly. Let me know if you need any help. And I should tell you that I'll support this move, but often there are people that hate disambiguation pages with only two articles so you might get opposition due to that. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes, the second way sounds easier. So here we go: to any closing admin, should this not close with a consensus to perform the move (which I still have to say is my primary preference) I would be in favor of the disambiguation swap proposed above by CWenger.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and I also oppose having Thank You for Smoking be a disambiguation page as an experiment unless there is some evidence that the novel is the primary topic. I am very skeptical that it is the primary topic, and wish to avoid this disruption if there is no point to it. Do we have any reason to believe it has any chance? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance? What?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading your logic correctly, then yes, of course. The only real issue stopping this move from being 100% logical is the number of page views. And that is in large part due to the fact that the film has always been the primary, for whatever reason.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident the difference in the number of page views is because the film is wildly more well-known than the novel. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to sound overly critical, did you actually read any of the ample discussion above? Should the Lord of the Rings films be the primary topic over the books?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no. Why do you ask? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. When this closes I'll probably open the discussion about the disambiguation page; you're certainly welcome to participate in that as well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's any evidence that the novel is the primary topic then I would happily consider endorsing the experiment, but I feel that in the absence of any evidence such an experiment would be needlessly disruptive. I don't think you need to open a new discussion, though, everyone here already seems to be considering this option. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I used a movie like V for Vendetta or LOTR as an example. Even when the book is the primary topic, the film page still gets more views; it's only natural that when the film is the only primary that amount more is far higher.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For LOTR, there is a strong case to make that the books are the PT. They are enormously popular and influential. Per wp:RECENTISM, we probably shouldn't move the films to the undisambiguated titles even if they are more likely to be sought by readers; there is a good chance they won't be more likely to be sought by readers in a few years. I don't think you can really make this kind of recentism argument when the book is essentially unknown and the film is wildly popular. V for Vendetta should probably be moved. Shrek should probably not be changed to redirect to Shrek!; I don't think we have any reason to believe that the film is what people are going to be thinking of for years to come when they think of "Shrek". What evidence is there that TYfS is more like LOTR and not like Shrek? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:44, 10 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.