Talk:The Horsemen (1971 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Horsemen (1971 film) 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

Film: American

	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.

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 25 May 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Horsemen (film). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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: no consensus for move, and disambiguation by year is helpful here. Miniapolis 15:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Horsemen (1971 film) → The Horsemen (film) – There is no other article of the same name, therefore there is no need for a natural disambiguation of the subject to be that specific. It would seem more appropriate that the subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name, rather than the target also redirecting to the disambiguation page. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Horsemen (film) 2009 is a problem. Also The Horsemen (1950 film) but is only a redirect to the Soviet Brave People (film). I've added a hatnote. However it means that the proposed cut of ~~1971~~ isn't totally unambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IIO's finding of a 1950 release. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Horsemen 2009 film has no bearing on this as it has a different title and a hatnote can serve the purpose of distinguishing. The 1950 film is titled Brave People, and in the last 90 days the 1971 film has received 2312 views, whereas the 1950 has received 29 views. As the 1971 film is the PRIMARYTOPIC due to both the long-term significance and the usage criterion for the name The Horsemen therefore hatnotes are more appropriate to distinguish between the films here than specific disambiguation. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those usage stats don't matter, since we're not moving it to The Horsemen, therefore it does not meet primary topic criteria. Further WP:NCF, if there are multiple films with the same name, then they should not use ambiguous disambiguation. Also WP:RECENTISM. And just because something has more than one title, doesn't mean it doesn't also have rights to its alternate titles that the Wikipedia article is not sitting at. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the 1950 film will be researched someday, and abandoning the year isn't the best way. --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with hatnotes to the other films. No other film with an article has this exact name. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All three films should be titled The Horseman (YYYY film) or Horseman (YYYY film). The word "The" is next to useless for disambiguating/searching for the typical reader. The most recent film only appears primary due to recentism biases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a navigational problem not a problem with ambiguity. If “The” is useless for disambiguating or searching then hatnotes can be used for the purpose to help the reader to be directed to the intended page, NOT further disambiguation.

Horseman and The Horseman do not share the same title. If you end up on Horsemen while looking for The Horsemen it is because you have typed Horseman and Horsemen alone. This would be the equivalent of searching for Almighty Thor with the query “Thor.”

FYI the 1950 film did not exist on Wikipedia before this move request and was in fact created on the back of this move request, which is the reason for the recentism. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is the only film named The Horsemen; it is naturally disambiguated from the other uses. Disambiguating further is unnecessary and a violation of WP:PRECISION. --B2C 23:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRECISION doesn't explain that virtually meaningless disambiguation ("the") is sufficient precision. Horseman Horsemen The Horseman The Horsemen The horsemen The horseman are ambiguous variations to the non-expert. WP:PRECISION explains that we need a title to unambiguously define, which means appending "(Year film)", as it very reasonable to assume that readers looking for the movie has some reasonable idea of vintage. If I were to be writing an essay comparing and contrasting these horsemen films, I would certainly distinguish them by year and not by the subtle, easily overlooked variations of the titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2013 (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.