This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to show Krasznahorkai's singular numbering of the chapters as shown in the book's table of contents, like so (I'm showing the titles in English but you get the idea):
PART ONE
I. The news that they are coming
II. We shall rise
III. To know something
IV. The work of the spider I (The blackened eight)
V. Comes unstitched
VI. The work of the spider II (Devilish bosoms, satan's tango)
PART TWO
VI. Irimiás makes a speech
V. Perspective, when from the front
IV. To go to heaven? To dream?
III. Perspective, when from behind
II. Only troubles, only work
I. The circle closes
-- JanBielawski 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be more useful to create a separate article on the novel. Hoverfish Talk 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why it's referred to here as "Satantango" without the diacritical marks. Surely if we're going to "romanise" the spelling we should go the whole hog and just refer to it as Satan's Tango. Opening with "Satantango (orig. Sátántangó)" seems utterly redundant to me. I think it should be:
None of this pandering "Satantango" business. Thoughts? Opinions? There's probably a style guide floating around somewhere for this, but for some reason I felt very strongly that this needed to be discussed. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. It seems to be accepted that the film is more widely known than the book. (It get six times as many page views in Wikipedia). So having the film be the primary topic is not ridiculous. There is not even a consensus on inclusion of the accents. They are not used consistently by English writings that refer to the book. They seem to be more common for the film. It's possible the book will get more famous with time. Its English translation only came out in 2012, though the book has been available in French since 2000. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
requested move/dated}}
– I don't think either is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, and the disambiguation by diacritic alone is clearly insufficient, as the book has the same title. At the same time, no real reason not to include the diacritics in the title for the article title for the novel - the Guardian has in this interview for example. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've moved them from the external links section of the article, per WP:NOTLINK, but could be useful for future expansion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added a detailed description for the film. I hope you like it enough to keep it.-- 186.167.243.93 ( talk) 01:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to show Krasznahorkai's singular numbering of the chapters as shown in the book's table of contents, like so (I'm showing the titles in English but you get the idea):
PART ONE
I. The news that they are coming
II. We shall rise
III. To know something
IV. The work of the spider I (The blackened eight)
V. Comes unstitched
VI. The work of the spider II (Devilish bosoms, satan's tango)
PART TWO
VI. Irimiás makes a speech
V. Perspective, when from the front
IV. To go to heaven? To dream?
III. Perspective, when from behind
II. Only troubles, only work
I. The circle closes
-- JanBielawski 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be more useful to create a separate article on the novel. Hoverfish Talk 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why it's referred to here as "Satantango" without the diacritical marks. Surely if we're going to "romanise" the spelling we should go the whole hog and just refer to it as Satan's Tango. Opening with "Satantango (orig. Sátántangó)" seems utterly redundant to me. I think it should be:
None of this pandering "Satantango" business. Thoughts? Opinions? There's probably a style guide floating around somewhere for this, but for some reason I felt very strongly that this needed to be discussed. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. It seems to be accepted that the film is more widely known than the book. (It get six times as many page views in Wikipedia). So having the film be the primary topic is not ridiculous. There is not even a consensus on inclusion of the accents. They are not used consistently by English writings that refer to the book. They seem to be more common for the film. It's possible the book will get more famous with time. Its English translation only came out in 2012, though the book has been available in French since 2000. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
requested move/dated}}
– I don't think either is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, and the disambiguation by diacritic alone is clearly insufficient, as the book has the same title. At the same time, no real reason not to include the diacritics in the title for the article title for the novel - the Guardian has in this interview for example. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've moved them from the external links section of the article, per WP:NOTLINK, but could be useful for future expansion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added a detailed description for the film. I hope you like it enough to keep it.-- 186.167.243.93 ( talk) 01:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)