Talk:The short twentieth century

I was in the middle of renaming article "Short twentieth century" to "The short twentieth century" (because the definite article is an integral part of the phrase"). It first got tagged by some bot who thought I was duplicating the content, then replaced by a redirect to the article about the book "The Age of Extremes", all within a few minutes. Perhaps this article could now remain as it is, since it already existed under its previous name, is analogous with The long 19th century, and is useful for linking to. (Three articles link to this.) Thank you. Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss this, didn't think it would be controversial. As far as I can see, the term "The short twentieth century" is only really notable in the context of Hobsbawm's book. Am I mistaken on this count? Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I think the article is useful as it is, simply as the definition of the phrase, notwithstanding that it was coined by Hobsbawm. Compare to the article The long 19th century, also referring to a historical period coined by Hobsbawm. OK, that article refers to three books, so presumably it could not be replaced by a link to a single article (especially as none of the books have a corresponding article page), but nevertheless, they're sort of sister terms, so I feel that if one deserves an article, so does the other.

I'm not feeling very strongly about this, though, and am amenable to persuasion. Teemu Leisti (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't feel particuarly strongly on it either, and I'm happy to just leave it be if you think that's the best course of action. Lankiveil (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

OK, let's leave it as it is then. Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]