Talk:The Blue Flower

It is perfectly grammatical
You're being completely ridiculous. It is perfectly grammatical to refer to "Author Book" as a single entity. It simply isn't the style you prefer, or more precisely in this case, it isn't a style you have even heard of, and that is not grounds for unilaterally changing style. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, in response to your "edit summary" (Maybe if this were a citation; this is a sentence, and it is ungrammatical to say: "Peter Wolfe Understanding Penelope Fitzgerald.") In fact in my usage, the book is indeed being cited, so I don't understand your objection. It is also ungrammatical to say "Peter Wolfe's Understanding Penelope Fitzgerald", so you're not making much of a point here. As for grammar, in "Author Title", the Author is being used as an apposition, not a possessive. It's actually clearer, since "Author's Title" can refer to the Author's personal copy of Title. For example, "Peter Wolfe's The Blue Flower was heavily annotated." Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, forgive me, I was unfamiliar with the citation style you were employing. Your reasoning in the above post is convincing to me. So, I concede the point. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. As an academic, this "in-line" style of citation is something I'm very used to seeing.  English possessives are pretty bizarre (they can be one or more of genitive, partitive, appositive). Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)