Talk:Love Eterne (2011 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by AngusWOOF, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 16, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

File:Love eterne page.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Love eterne page.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Page not moved: insufficient support Ground Zero | t 01:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Eterne (film) → Love Eterne – The Hong Kong film is known in English as The Love Eterne (as can be seen from the poster on that page) with the word "The", so the two films have different English titles. The two pages already reference each other in hatnotes, so disamiguation is unnecessary (not to mention inaccurate and confusing). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - results in English Google Books for the original (famous) film are about 50/50 with or without "The", so "The" can't distinguish the films. In fact I was thrown by this nomination because "Love Eterne (film)" would naturally mean Love Eterne (1963 film). This 2011 indie film must knowingly be taking the name of the Shaw Bros film (why doesn't the article mention it?) but should move to Love Eterne (2011 film) per WP:NCF. If a director makes an indie movie using the title of a historically notable film, then (2011 film) is inevitable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 film's article doesn't mention the old film because, most likely, it has nothing to do with the old one other than sharing similar English titles. The stories clearly have nothing in common. The old film, while very notable in much of Asia, is nonetheless relatively unknown in the English-speaking population in my opinion (outside of the academic circle that specializes in Asian cinema/theater/opera/music/folk stories, as most/all? of your Google Book results are from). That is why I proposed the move.

After further checking the 2011 film's page, though, I must say the existence of so many "own work" photos is a little suspicious of WP:Conflict of interest. A budget of $10,000 (in 2010s America) also hardly seems impressive. I guess I'm also not sure how notable this film is, despite a bunch of references. Timmyshin (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I agree notability for the film didn't leap out. Despite the apparent lack of any connection with the HK classic it's inconceivable that the director/screenwriters didn't know of/look at Amazon or Google before fixing the name of their new film. Our hands are really tied by WP:NCF on this, we would need evidence of exceptional Star Wars type circumstances to not to follow the guideline, not a $10,000 garage film. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a cut-and-paste move of "Love Eterne" into "The Love Eterne" in 2007, and another one from "The Love Eterne" into "Love Eterne" in 2005, I've asked for a hsitmerge -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update the histmerge has been completed -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2014 (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.

Requested move #2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Number 5 7 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Eterne (film) → Love Eterne (2011 film) – See discussion above. Love Eterne (film) should instead direct to the other film The Love Eterne. Timmyshin (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as discussion above; deliberate or not, encroachment of a barely notable indie film onto a classic HK film title will likely wrongfoot users looking for the original. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The HK film can then have the hatnote. Love Eterne Mourning can then redirect to Love Eterne (2011 film). -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2014 (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.