Talk:The Big Short

Untitled

this is a new page with substantially new content. it has references and internal wiki links. do not delete. Rachelskit (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Eisman really a misanthrope? I didn't get that from the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougransom (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A curmudgeon maybe?Rachelskit (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How can you have Asperger's Syndrome in an eye? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.10.59 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

He had Asperger's Syndrome, but NOT in his eye! He lost his eye from a childhood disease.

Requested move 10 January 2016

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. Votes split, both have reasonable arguments. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The Big Short → The Big Short (book) – Or The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday MachineThe Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. In the light of the film adaptation, I can say that this book may be no longer the primary topic, even when the book is the original topic. Both are related to the real-life housing crisis of mid-2000s. Also, the book (last 90 days) is viewed not as much as the film (last 90 days). The current title should be the base title of a disambiguation page. I don't want to pick the film as the primary topic yet until five years later. George Ho (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, prefer The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine per WP:NATURAL and agree yes don't remove (film) from the (film). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENT. — Film Fan 15:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This is a WP:TWODABS situation, and it's too soon to tell if the film will become primary over the book. Creating a dab page for two items is generally pointless.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 21 January 2016 (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.