Talk:Classic book

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Classic book article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

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

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Top‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Classic book appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that playwright Alan Bennett's definition of a classic book is "a book everyone is assumed to have read and often thinks they have read themselves"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

Wikipedia

On 7 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Classical literature. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 7 November 2024

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 result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a future RM for a potential move to Classic literature. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic book → Classical literature – Naturalness; Subject is as much a field of study as it is a "type" of object, "literature" covers both aspects of the topic. The redirect to classics studies does not make sense either per recognizability, very few people are going to be thinking of Homer or Vergil without also thinking of Shakespeare or Joyce. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me "classical literature" does suggest ancient Greek and Latin literature; classic literature might be a better target to move to though I don't know that I'm persuaded it's that much better than "classic book". Classical literature currently redirects to classics whereas classic literature goes to classic book which suggests I'm not alone in making that distinction. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic" and "classical" are extremely minute differences, Classical literature should be a disambiguation at the very least. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bigger difference than between iron maiden (the torture device) and Iron Maiden (the band), or between Airplane (the vehicle) and Airplane! (the film). WP:SMALLDETAILS explicitly permits using this kind of small detail to distinguish articles with similar titles. "Classical literature" has a specific meaning and it currently points to the most appropriate article for that meaning; there's absolutely no need to mess with that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should just be moved to Classic literature, the point still stands. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Caeciliusinhorto. Srnec (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Literature and WikiProject History have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominated. "Classic" and "classical" mean very different things, as pointed out by others already, and moving to a title with "classical" would be wrong. No prejudice against a move to "classic literature" or similar, but I think that should be discussed in a separate RM. Toadspike [Talk] 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am unsure whether a move to Classic literature is a good idea, both because it would have a very similar title to Classical literature (maybe this is okay per SMALLDETAILS, but I'd prefer to avoid it), and because this article and its sources seem to use "book" more often than "literature. Toadspike [Talk] 16:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose usage of "classical", per Caeciliusinhorto and others. In my experience, the term "classical" strongly conveys classical antiquity, which would be unsuitable for this article's topic. However, I would support classic literature, as I share the nom's opinion that using "literature" better represents the field of study encompassed in the article scope. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Classic book is the historical/accepted/scholarship/etc term, to me Classical literature has a completely different meaning. Classic literature might be acceptable to the editorial consensus but we need a separate RM for that possibility. - Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2024 (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.

That opening sentence...

The title of the topic is "Classic book," yet the first sentence of the article seems to define the word classic by itself by saying "A classic is a book accepted as being exemplary or particularly noteworthy." Technically, the word classic could be applied to any sort of art form, like literature or film. Shouldn't the opening sentence be, "A classic book is on that is accepted as being exemplary or particularly noteworthy"? Prileymovieguy84 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]