Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Support 1.2 Object 1.3 Discussion 2 Requested Disambiguation 2.1 Support 2.2 Discussion

Requested move

I think the book should have the main entry, since it came first and its what the movie is based on. --DrBat 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Sign your vote with # ~~~~

Support

1. I support the idea of making the book the primary article, but I would rather see the book article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)" and the movie article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie)" with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" redirecting to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)".   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
2. It would make a lot of sense, since the film is an adaptation of the novel. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Object

1. A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Tonymec 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

A disambiguation page might make sense here. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I would support a motion to have One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest be a disambiguation page for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie).   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 02:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

From User talk:Sonic Mew:

And I notice you voted to move the novel article of OFotCN; why? There is the clear level of popularity in the movie that makes it obtain the exception as 2001 has. It has made much more money than the novels, it is far more popular, and it is one of the biggest Academy Award winners of all time. More people are going to go to the main article for movie information, you fail to realize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe I said why there. If I went to that page, then I would want information on the book, but that is why I suggested a disambiguation. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Point being? There is a SIGNIFICANT amount of people that would visit the article for information on the book movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You were denying that above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are. But that still leaves a big number of people wanting information on the book. That's why a disambiguation would be a good idea. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And that number is dwarfed by those who want information on the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can either of you produce evidence for your claims? In the end, though, it should not matter whether one format is mass media or not. More people would be interested in the book, if the movie wasn’t the only thing they ever heard about. The book is the better, and original work. If this can’t be resolved, we should consider putting the novel and movie articles back together into one.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Quality doesn't matter, it's popularity. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest made $100,000,000, and if ticket prices were what they are now, it would have made much more than that. I can honestly say that a lot of the people who saw the movie (which is more exposed to people) haven't heard of the book. A disambig page is not needed for a subject with two articles. Keep the movie on the main page, and link to the book page right away. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey does. And like how The Godfather links to the disambig page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The book is still the original work, though. We aren't denying the popularity of the movie, but it makes much more sense to either have them both at one page, or to have the main page as a disambiguation. Besides, I expect most people that have seen the movie have at least heard about the book. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, we use the fact that 2001 uses the main article, as it is significantly more well-known. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Before we just keep repeating the same arguements over and over again, does anyone have anything else to add to the discussion? Sonic Mew | talk to me 06:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There's alot of arguement about "original work" well i think its important to recognize that Kesey has said that he hated the film for straying from the boom completely and i tend to agree, except i dont hate the movie for it. He wasnt involved in the film process. So in terms of original work i'd consider both films to be original since the themes covered vary between the two. As such i think the current set up (where a querry presents the searcher with an option for both) to be quite good. --24.218.44.240 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I hardly ever saw the book, except with a photo from the movie on its cover, and I certainly never read it. OTOH the movie was a huge success here in the Sixties. I would reluctantly agree to the movie being moved to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie) provided that a disambiguation page, and not the book, take the space thus freed. - Tonymec 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested Disambiguation

Sign your vote with # ~~~~

Support

1. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Masterzora 04:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. User:Baiter

…i agree 75.19.43.213 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)artistluv85…===Object===

Discussion

Criticism

Can someone please add some references to books of criticism of the novel?