Talk:Inspector De Luca (TV series)

Requested 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. The existence of Inspector De Luca (novel series) effectively addresses the supporters' arguments. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Inspector De Luca (TV series) → Inspector De Luca – Unnecessary disambiguation.   Tentinator    22:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have copied a comment here by Steel1943 from WP:RMTR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, (obviously): the page was moved without explanation, and I have just reverted per WP:BRD. The title chosen follows the pattern of other, similar pages; the proposed title can apply to the character, or the book series, both of which are notable and precede the TV series. Swanny18 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per article creator Swanny18. The books came first, probably have more long term notability, and the TV series is an afterthought. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support There is no article on the book or the character so move to the basename. If or when another article is created then its notability can be assessed and pages moved if necessary. Tassedethe (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Steel1943, you are not wrong, but it is the wrong question, the content of the book series is covered (badly) in the author article, so en.wikipedia does not deny the existence of the novels, the novels are also mentioned (briefly as they should be) in the TV series article. But en.Wikipedia is not a self-defining source of what is notable, it is a volunteer project with a systematic bias to what interests our editor demographics, which is not the same thing as WP:RS-based notability. When an article creator (respect to User:Swanny18) creates an article with (TV series) recognizing what the Carlo Lucarelli author article states, that the novels came first, it does not require another editor to come along and based on a misunderstanding of WP:PRECISION ambiguate the TV series article. At the very least Inspector De Luca (novels) should have been created as a redirect category placement to the author article. If this is not the case then WP:PRECISION and other guidelines need to undergo wholesale rewrites to redefine reality and notability as what Wikipedia's editors choose to create articles on. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Steel1943, you are not wrong, but it is the wrong question, the content of the book series is covered (badly) in the author article, so en.wikipedia does not deny the existence of the novels, the novels are also mentioned (briefly as they should be) in the TV series article. But en.Wikipedia is not a self-defining source of what is notable, it is a volunteer project with a systematic bias to what interests our editor demographics, which is not the same thing as WP:RS-based notability. When an article creator (respect to User:Swanny18) creates an article with (TV series) recognizing what the Carlo Lucarelli author article states, that the novels came first, it does not require another editor to come along and based on a misunderstanding of WP:PRECISION ambiguate the TV series article. At the very least Inspector De Luca (novels) should have been created as a redirect category placement to the author article. If this is not the case then WP:PRECISION and other guidelines need to undergo wholesale rewrites to redefine reality and notability as what Wikipedia's editors choose to create articles on. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per my comment above. If the other articles currently exist, please let me know so that I may change my opinion on the matter. Steel1943  (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck out my vote due to the creation of Inspector De Luca (novels). Since that article now exists, I have no opinion in the matter due to not feeling strong about either article being the primary topic. However, if no primary topic is established as a result of this discussion, then Inspector De Luca should become a disambiguation page. Steel1943  (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Superfluous (per wp:precise and wp:concise), and unnatural (avoid parenthesis per wp:natural) disambiguation. The novels may well be the wp:primarytopic in Italian, but since we don't have an article in English about them, the question is moot. walk  victor falktalk 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support . The other uses don't have articles on WP.   --B2C 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Those who disagree with the current status of WP:DISAMBIGUATION should ideally launch a RFC to change what the guideline says so that it says that we disambiguate against titles rather than what it now says, which is topics. However those who do not disagree with the guideline and are simply saying that Inspector De Luca (novels) are not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in English should note that judged by Google book sources the novels are given more English-language print source attention than the Italian TV adaptation. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that you've created a stub (a good one btw), I must reconsider my !vote. walk victor falktalk 12:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Victor, I hope it meets WP:IDEALSTUB, also that the encyclopedia's coverage of books can continue to try and keep pace with TV and film. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand the statements about WP:DISAMBIGUATION in the "Those who disagree..." comment. As that is off topic here, I inquired about it at User_talk:In_ictu_oculi.  --B2C 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Move Inspector De Luca (novels) to  Inspector De Luca (oppose dab) Quantitatively, neither seems exceptionally more wp:primarytopicy than the other (by like at least an order of magnitude). Therefore as usually is the case in those situations, based on the "with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the original work and not the derivative is the primary topic. No to a dab page, WP:TWODAB, hat notes suffice. walk  victor falktalk 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Until and if an omnibus 3-in-1 edition is published in English with that title we cannot use that title, if it really is primary then it should redirect to Inspector De Luca (novels) or Inspector De Luca novels. WP:TWODABS allows 2 dabs, particulary if a third subject is the character himself who exists outside novels and films - as he does in the unfilmed pilot prequel script which isn't based on the novels, but on hints about the character's origins in the novels. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The pattern being followed was that of other, similar cases, such as Inspector Montalbano (dab page, linking to character/book article and TV series articles) or Inspector Morse (character/book article and separate TV series article). That is the most logical, and the most common, arrangement.
 * Moving this article is not conducive to long term title stability or to reducing conflicts about titles if the inevitable article on the character means we have to go through another RM process/admin action to get it moved back again.
 * And I don’t think we should be making a fetish out of the disambiguation process; one of the purposes of red-links is to indicate where new articles are required, and if pre-disambiguating does this and preserves the long-term pattern of such articles, what is the value of stamping on it? It is of more benefit to the project than endlessly shuffling pages and arguing at RM discussions, surely. Swanny18 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.