Talk:De vierde man

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: moved. The consensus is that this article should be located at De vierde man. There is no consensus as to whether this novel is the primary topic of "The Fourth Man", so the status quo remains, which means that The Fourth Man continues to redirect to this article. If anyone is dissatisfied with this, a new RM can be opened about which article should be the primary topic of "The Fourth Man", or if it should be a dab page. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fourth Man → De vierde man – There is no such book as The Fourth Man. Perhaps some day it will get translated into English, and the translation may call it The Fourth Man. But right now, the only official title of the book in the English world is De vierde man; any translation is a Wikipedia-constructed translation inappropriate for us to use as the title of the article. The only place I can find that talks about the book The Fourth Man, by Gerard Reve, is Wikipedia and Wikipedia copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Usage of "The Fourth Man" seems to be limited to WP mirrors and discussion of the film adaptation. Reve's novel is commonly known as "De vierde man". Evanh2008 (talk 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the Agatha Christie story (located at The_Hound_of_Death) should occupy this name, or a disambiguation page should exist. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Googling shows that The Fourth Man (film) is primary. So the article on the book should be titled something else. But if there is no intention of making the movie primary, I'd prefer to leave this subject where it is. I strongly disagree with the nom that a "Wikipedia-constructed translation [is] inappropriate". See WP:NCB: "books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title". Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment why would you leave this where it is, wouldn't you redirect this title to the film? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the term directs to the film, then the film is primary. So, yes, that would be fine by me. Kauffner (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NCB doesn't trump WP:NOR. And as a reader who came to this article ignorant of the subject, I had to wonder if it was a hoax, because it was claiming that a Dutch author published a book with an English title, a book that showed up nowhere on the net besides Wikipedia copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What about all the "descriptive titles"? Are they OR too? Use English is policy. Nothing trumps it. Kauffner (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UE says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence. If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)." I.E., since there are no English-language sources on this, we should use the Dutch name.
 * In any case, WP:NOR is a core content policy and thus trumps WP:UE.
 * And since you missed the point, this is an anti-descriptive title. This does not clearly identify the subject of the article to the reader; it hides the subject of the article from the reader. When I read this article, I looked for the book The Fourth Man, just to find that no members of LibraryThing had a copy, nor did any WorldCat libraries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You thought I was referring to policy on spelling? I meant this section of UE: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." Kauffner (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It lost accuracy and confused the hell out of me. So why is that sentence an argument for translating it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

REDIRECT redirected and technical move rejected
Just a heads up to anyone watching this page: The Fourth Man: Difference between revisions 22 August 2012 saw an undiscussed edit of the redirect "The Fourth Man" from De vierde man to The Fourth Man (film). There is now a move request in at Talk:The Fourth Man (film) to move on top of the redirect The Fourth Man. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)