Jump to content

Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peteforsyth (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 5 March 2024 (→‎Requested move 4 March 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Synopsis

This needs a proper plot synopsis. The current one reads like the clurb on the back of the DVD. A plot synopsis shouldn't end with teaser questions. --66.103.88.163 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) (user Tysto)[reply]

Absolutely. It's a shame nobody fixed this before now. CapnZapp (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the movie abruptly ends after Meek yields to the majority. I really enjoyed seeing the depiction of hardship that it took to cross the Oregon Trail in 1845. However, the movie ended at a totally awkward and seemingly random spot. I found the story on Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meek_Cutoff), which provided much more information than the movie! The actor did look a lot like the picture of Stephen Meek. The movie (for me) felt like it told less than half of the real story, but the depictions of the perils of "going west" were done very well. For me, it was like getting a 2-ounce steak; tasty but unfilling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.14.42.32 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2024

Meek's Cutoff (film)Meek's Cutoff – Meek's Cutoff is currently a DAB that links here and to Meek Cutoff. The location has no 's, so there's no need for a disambiguator like (film) to be appended to the AT. Per WP:ONEOTHER, hatnotes at the top of each article is sufficient. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PInging @Ahecht and @SilverLocust since you both just completed page moves involving these pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Clarityfiend and @Peteforsyth who, respectively, requested this move today at WP:RM/TR and made the 2018 move that this would revert. SilverLocust 💬 23:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Westerns has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Oregon has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I believe the synopsis given by @Voorts give sufficient rationale behind making the change. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 23:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and DJ Cane. The nomination should be paired with Meek's Cutoffdeleted to make room for move. There is indeed no need for this two-entry disambiguation page since hatnotes will obviate the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(film)". —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. "The Meek Cutoff" and "Meek's Cutoff" are used interchangeably in contemporaneous texts. (See here, for example.) The entire reason the film is called "Meek's Cutoff" is because the thing it is named after is...Meek's Cutoff. I love the film -- it's an epic work of art -- but the term has signified the wagon trail for more than 150 years, and the reference to the film is secondary and recent. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the common name of the location? Which has more usage in reliable sources? If it turns out to be Meek's Cutoff, I would support moving Meek Cutoff to that page instead, and then the disambiguator film would stay here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more common spelling standard isn't relevant in this instance. If the film were about something entirely different, it might be a coin flip, or a dab page with clearly delineated "(film)" and "(historic road)" designators. But the film's title derives from the historic road. Just one scenario, suppose somebody watches the film and decides to search Wikipedia for info about the road. Being taken directly to the page about the film conveys an entirely false impression, that the film is a significant piece of why the road is famous. The road and expedition have been famous for many decades. There have been scholarly articles and books about the road and the expedition. Again, I have nothing but admiration for the film, but it would be inappropriate to grant it extra weight in establishing the infamy of the road by using the same name the road goes by, and diverting readers who are seeking info about the road. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be opposed to moving Meek Cutoff to Meek's Cutoff, and then hatnoting to the film page from there? Then, Meek Cutoff and any alternative spellings would redirect to Meek's Cutoff, and there'd be no need for a DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the most elegant solution, and the one that would be the least confusing to readers. Thanks for spelling that out. Yes, I think that's the best way, the DAB page is extraneous if that's the approach taken. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]