Talk:Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 February 2018 edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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 for the new title, and thus reverting to the stable title Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy, per the discussion below. Please note that this could have been done without discussion through WP:RMTR/WP:RMUM. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Merlin Trilogy → Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy – I'd like to see it restored to the original title. The omnibus was first published under this title, as you can see here on Worldcat. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support more recognizable. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm okay with this. (I moved the page.) Somehow I missed this when looking at the publication history, and OCLC 608979847 seemed to be the definitive record. I've since made the distinction in the text. —Ringbang (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Both versions have been used, but the present title is the more recent, and is far more common in Google Books: [1] vs. [2]--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic