Talk:The Accursed Kings

Untitled

Um, and what are those 7 novels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.34.8 (talk) 23:00, December 20, 2004

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Miniseries section and tone

What little is there reads like a review of the miniseries, not an article section. It should be cleaned up. ip.address.conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.255.67 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article implies that the seventh volume in the series [VII. Quand un Roi perd la France (When a King Loses France)]is part of the Scribner English language translations. It does not appear that an English translation was ever published.

128.135.53.213 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section cannot be split into a new article becuase #1: it does not have any references, and it is to short. Removing tag. --MWOAP (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Perhaps it should be added that The Iron King was also published in the US as The Ardent Infidels by Ace Books (after the general structure of the article is cleaned up). 69.127.171.32 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after over two weeks and a relisting period. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The Accursed Kings → Les Rois maudits – This is a French novel series most famous in its native language, and adapted twice in that country under its French name. It was relatively unknown in the US and out of print for decades until American author George R. R. Martin's more recent praise of it. Martin's own popularity prompted his UK publisher to reissue the series in English, including the never-before-translated final novel. The series has not been adapted in English for TV or film. Unfortunately I created a redirect at what I believe should be the correct article title before (in working on the article) I realized it should be under the French name. Full disclosure, I have changed many links to the article from The Accursed Kings to Les Rois maudits because the articles themselves were French-centric (French historical figures from the novels, French actors playing the roles, the French author, etc.) and the related citations (where available) reflected the French title. The only articles with sources citing "The Accursed Kings" are the Martin-centric ones. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — TAnthony^Talk 04:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, all of the Druon obituaries, the Helene Duc obituary, and two out of the three Game of Thrones-related citations use the French title first or exclusively, the exception being Martin's own piece written for The Guardian. Today I have also put a Game of Thrones related 2015 Wall Street Journal article and a 2012 book review in External links (for later use in the article) which use Accursed Kings first.— TAnthony^Talk 03:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support known by French title In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If in doubt use English, see WP:ENGLISH. Also, it may be relatively unknown in the US, but in the UK a French TV serial based on it was broadcast on BBC, back in the days when we only had 3 TV channels, under its English title, which I think does make it significantly known. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the works were completely unknown everywhere but in France, but I don't think the impact of a subtitled rebroadcast branded with the title in English outweighs that of the original French novels/adaptations. Les Liaisons dangereuses seems to me a comparable example; it is hugely famous to modern readers from the 1988 English language film Dangerous Liaisons but obviously has a longer history of praise and adaptations that collectively overshadow that film. But as I mentioned, so far the bulk of English sources I have come across which discuss this series refer to the French title Les Rois maudits first or exclusively, which per WP:ENGLISH supports the move to the French title.— TAnthony^Talk 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not sure how to properly configure a web search that would help us here.— TAnthony^Talk 02:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE. Calidum T|C 03:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Reply I can't judge the situation in the US, but in Britain, to the extent this is known at all, I think it is mainly known from the 1970s TV serial. One argument for a presumption in favour of using English (see WP:NCB) is the "principle of least astonishment", which means that even for many English-speaking people who know it mainly under the French title, the English title will not come as a great surprise, while for some people who know it under the English title the French title will be unfamiliar. Each case must be judged on its own merits, but one issue with "Les Liaisons dangereuses" is that even if your French is minimal you can probably guess the meaning, but while many people will know "rois", "maudits" is pretty obscure even to many people who know some French. See Salome (play) for another example. PatGallacher (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The article is predominantly about the French-language novels, which are of course known by their French titles, even in English. The current title is just plain wrong; It describes a significantly different topic. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post RM

I confess I'm a little bit surprised by the above result. Two possible ways forward.

One is to challenge the closure at WP:MR. The grounds might be that the "votes" opposing were both primarily based on WP:UE, one of them simply citing it and adding nothing. Discount that second oppose and there's a rough but policy-based consensus to move.

But perhaps a better way forward would be to WP:split the article. The problem seems to me to be that while the original French language and French titled series clearly meets the GNG

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Les+Rois+maudits%22+-Wikipedia&oq=%22Les+Rois+maudits%22+-Wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57.15361j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

there's also considerable interest in the English language derivatives

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22The+Accursed+Kings%22&oq=%22The+Accursed+Kings%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.6974j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%22The+Accursed+Kings%22+-Wikipdia

enough probably to warrant an article in their own right.

Ideallly (for reasons given in my "vote") we'd move first and then split, but that's not a show-stopper IMO.

Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, there were some good arguments on either side, and the arguments from support voters weren't overwhelmingly compelling. No one gave any real evidence as to which version was more common in English language sources, for instance though it's clear that at this point many exist. You can take it to MR if you really want, but it seems very unlikely that will result in a different outcome. A better option would be to have a look at the sources and see which name really is the common one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. IMO despite some good arguments neither side addressed the issues particularly well, which seems to me to be a good case for another relisting rather than a close, which is why MR first occurred to me.

But I'm more interested in the possibility of a split. There does seem to be a very good case for an article on the French novels, but there also seems to be a case for an article on the English derivatives, possibly even a better case. So, why not have both?

But if we were to do that, it seems to me that the existing page history would be better with the article on the French novels. Is that a show-stopper? I don't think so, but it would be neater, which brings us back to MR.

And a case could even be made for disruption if I were seen to have overturned the move close by stealth, for example if, following he split, there were to be a merge or merge proposal back to the French-language title. Which again brings us back to MR.

But my strongly preferred option now is for a split, and to leave the history where it is. It's a perfectly acceptable place for it in terms of our copyleft attribution requirements. That means accepting that maybe the move was a lost opportunity to do things more neatly but not now worth revisiting, and moving on.

So I'm seeking to build consensus for this way forward (or at least to see whether there are any strong objections) before formally proposing it. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw no reason to think a relisting would help achieve a clearer consensus due to how long it was open, otherwise I'd have done that. I have little opinion on the cleanup. I don't know how a split would help here, aren't the "English derivatives" just translations of the original books? That's usually dealt with at the same article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the initiator of the RM and I've been out of town. As I did explain in the discussion, in working to improve the article I found that nearly all of the acceptable English language sources say something like "...Maurice Druon's Le Rois maudits (The Accursed Kings) ..." which, to me, equates to using the French title but translating it into English for readers. The exceptions are Martin's piece for The Guardian, which only uses Accursed Kings, and a 2015 Wall Street Journal article and a 2012 book review (both in External links for later use in the article) which use Accursed Kings first (as in "Druon’sThe Accursed Kings (Les Rois Maudits) is in effect a single novel in seven volumes"). So basic Google searches are useless/misleading because both French and English appear in most cases.

I don't think I understand what your suggested split would entail? The only English derivative topics that exist are English reprints. The two TV adaptations were French language and as far as I know were rebroadcast in the UK with subtitles; I haven't seen a clip or source that even suggests the title card was substituted in English, but even if this occurred I don't think such rebranding counts as its own notable topic.— TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)