Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)

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)

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

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.wiki.x.io/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)

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:

• Meek's Cutoff ensemble.jpg

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

Requested move 4 March 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: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed change. The target title will instead be retargeted to the physical entity, with a hatnote to the film. BD2412 T 19:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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) — Relisting. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

PInging @Ahecht and @SilverLocust since you both just completed page moves involving these pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Westerns has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Oregon has been notified of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Support per nomination and DJ Cane. The nomination should be paired with Meek's Cutoff → deleted 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 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

@DJ Cane and @Roman Spinner: given that you have already !voted in support of this proposed move, would you object to my withdrawing this RM and then making the seemingly uncontroversial moves discussed above? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 02:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, no objection. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The common name for the road is Meek Cutoff, and WP:COMMONNAME should not be sacrificed to questionable expediency. Look at all the entries in Cutoff#Alternative routes (US:Westward Expansion Trails): not a single apostrophe among them. Hatnotes are sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what basis you assert which is the common name. I've read a great deal of early history of Oregon, and I see both used (as well as the "cut-off" spelling). Internet Archive searches for each spelling in the first 100 years yields 9 results (8 after discarding an obvious duplicate) for "Meek's" and 4 results (3 after discarding an obvious duplicate) for "Meek". Two of the three using "Meek" are at the popular/marketing end of the spectrum (the Southern Pacific's Sunset was more or less a marketing tool in 1898, and Douthit's book was literally a "souvenir" for the 1905 World's Fair, and earned some skepticism at the time for a lazy approach to disclosing COI), while "Meek's" is used by four of Oregon's most prominent early historians (Clarke, Gaston, Hines, and Wood).

Editing my comment, though the substance of it is unchanged. The Sunset search result is actually from 1993, only part of a "first 100 years" search due to tagging inconsistency at IA, and the criticisms of Douthit's book aren't relevant here after all. However, the usage of the term there is actually not expressed as a name, but an ordinary/conversational description, "...when we took the Stephen Meek cutoff."

Please note, I'm not strongly in favor of either one being the "main" page. My position is that both Meek's Cutoff and Meek Cutoff should go to the article about the road. I'm fine with reversing voorts' suggestion, i.e. Meek's Cutoff redirects to Meek Cutoff, if that seems better to you Clarityfiend. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That suggestion would be fine.

Meek Cutoff:

• US Forest Service
• a book titled The Meek Cutoff (reviewed by several reliable sources)
• another book, titled Terrible Trail: The Meek Cutoff, 1845
• another book, Wood, Water & Grass: Meek Cutoff of 1845
• a diary of one of its users
• a mention in the Oregon Encyclopedia, "a project of the Oregon Historical Society"
• a full article in the East Oregonian
• its entry in the Historical Marker Database
• a passing mention in an Oregon Daily Journal article (mistitled with "Meek's Cutoff, whereas the article actually calls it the "Meek cut-off")

Meek's Cutoff (not including references to the film):

• a passing mention in a Statesman Journal article

Both:

• Oregon House of Representatives Joint Memorial 0006 (stupid politicians)
• an article, but it seems clear (to me at least) that the title's reference to "Meek's Cutoff" is just a description, rather than the road's actual name Clarityfiend (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:2DAB. Can be handled by hatnotes with no less clicks for the reader if they're in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 08:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per previous reasoning by woodensuperman, among others. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Clarityfiend. Absolutely no evidence presented that the film is primary topic. That the other topics are under slightly different titles doesn't automatically rule them out, the names are intercchangeable. Overall there's no primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence the film is the primary topic. The spelling difference is trivial. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would be fine with Meek's Cutoff redirecting to Meek Cutoff, as suggested by @Peteforsyth, eliminating the DAB page, and adding a hatnote at Meek Cutoff to here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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.