This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Will anyone who has read the book write a summary of it, and gather up the reviews of the novel? Waiting for the movie, not much of an article! --
Prairieplant (
talk)
00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the synopsis of the book. Now all that is needed is critical reception. More than being a best selling book, what have reviewers said of the book? --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Deleted section on WWII and the section on Louis Zamperini
I deleted the section on WWII. This article covers the book by Hillenbrand. Link to a Wikipedia article on the war if you must. This article should be about the book. The additions to the synopsis are much appreciated. --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
There is an entire article on Louis Zamperini. If anything is missing from that article, but included in the added text, move it to that article. Keep the focus on the book, what is in it. --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Requested move 12 February 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The move rationale was "Article title is long, making it difficult to find quickly".
Natural disambiguation–in this case the book's subtitle–is typically preferred. But is an article title that is 11 words and 70 characters long
concise enough?
WP:SUBTITLE mentions verbose subtitles, in which a more concise
WP:COMMONNAME is often considered the more optimal title. Would the commonly recognizable title of Unbroken followed by the parenthetical (book) not be more optimal?
Οἶδα (
talk)
19:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support: None of the independent cited sources that I checked include the subtitle at all, and the subtitle is very deemphasized on the cover art (very small italic font on a separate line versus all-caps straight, strong and big for the main word), and this seems to be the only book discussed on Wikipedia that is entitled Unbroken. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support: We should change it to Unbroken (book), but if another book eventually comes along, it should just go to Unbroken (2010 book), which is how most topics are handled. --
rogerd (
talk)
02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Will anyone who has read the book write a summary of it, and gather up the reviews of the novel? Waiting for the movie, not much of an article! --
Prairieplant (
talk)
00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the synopsis of the book. Now all that is needed is critical reception. More than being a best selling book, what have reviewers said of the book? --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Deleted section on WWII and the section on Louis Zamperini
I deleted the section on WWII. This article covers the book by Hillenbrand. Link to a Wikipedia article on the war if you must. This article should be about the book. The additions to the synopsis are much appreciated. --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
There is an entire article on Louis Zamperini. If anything is missing from that article, but included in the added text, move it to that article. Keep the focus on the book, what is in it. --
Prairieplant (
talk)
07:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Requested move 12 February 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The move rationale was "Article title is long, making it difficult to find quickly".
Natural disambiguation–in this case the book's subtitle–is typically preferred. But is an article title that is 11 words and 70 characters long
concise enough?
WP:SUBTITLE mentions verbose subtitles, in which a more concise
WP:COMMONNAME is often considered the more optimal title. Would the commonly recognizable title of Unbroken followed by the parenthetical (book) not be more optimal?
Οἶδα (
talk)
19:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support: None of the independent cited sources that I checked include the subtitle at all, and the subtitle is very deemphasized on the cover art (very small italic font on a separate line versus all-caps straight, strong and big for the main word), and this seems to be the only book discussed on Wikipedia that is entitled Unbroken. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support: We should change it to Unbroken (book), but if another book eventually comes along, it should just go to Unbroken (2010 book), which is how most topics are handled. --
rogerd (
talk)
02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.