Talk:The Contact (1997 South Korean 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 Korean cinema task force.

Korea

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

Requested move 27 July 2015[edit]

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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Contact (1997 South Korean film) → The Contact – There's nothing else called "The Contact" - parenthesis isn't needed here. Unreal7 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Contact currently redirects to Contact, and the word 'The' may be too weak to disambiguate this article with other topics named 'Contact' that are far more major. I do agree that the disambiguation should be toned down. '(1997 South Korean film)' is unnecessarily long. --sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS as there is the article for Contact (1997 US film). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The" seems to be diaambiguation enough for articles like The Terminator. Unreal7 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS (or what it used to say before recent changes) per User:Lugnuts In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in small details," per WP:SMALLDETAILS. That's what it has said for a long time. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that guideline has been stuffed around - see discussion. In fact such variance is extremely unusual and only applies to super notable cases. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. There's nothing else on the talk page that we could reasonably expect readers to search for by typing in or clicking on "The Contact".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. I think the number of people typing "The Contact" in the search box who would be looking for anything other than this film would be vanishingly small. Jenks24 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to oppose per IIO's newly created article. Would also be fine with The Contact (1997 film) but that might need a new discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and supporters who have mentioned WP:SMALLDETAILS. Melonkelon (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although "the" is a small word, there is no other entry on Wikipedia that someone typing "The Contact" could be hoping to reach.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please move the page now? It's been over a month and 5 supports vs. 3 opposes. Unreal7 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as an unnecessary move. This film is too little known for "The" to be a consequential distinction, as opposed to topics like The Terminator or The Edge. Nothing wrong with keeping the disambiguation term. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what is it disambiguating from? Obviously disambiguation terms are not simply meant as descriptors, but rather to distinguish from another topic of the same name. Which other topic on wikipedia could possibly be the intended target for a reader looking for "The Contact"?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no way that The Contact is the primary topic (it redirects to simply Contact), so the extra disambig is needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought this was a new discussion (per Erik's post at WT:FILM), apologies, I've already commented above. I had no idea this had been dragging on for two months. Although my additional point still stands. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured since my opposition made the outcome less clear, that I would see if additional opinions could be solicited to decide one way or another. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lugnuts, Erik II. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did nobody look in Google Books for "film The Contact"? The Contact (1963 film) (which was a redlink from the Wendy Richards filmography) got as many references as the Korean film Jeopsok, and the "the Contact" on the Korean film's non-released abroad working English title is very odd, why "the"? Jeopsok means connection or juncture, not "the" connection, this is relevant since it's far from intuitive that anyone looking for the Korean film in English would add "the". Anyway, to simplify matters I've created a stub for the early John Hurt film, someone who thinks an early Spastics Society film featuring a major UK actor isn't important can try to AFD it. But even without it, this move isn't helping anyone. We could move to The Contact (1997 film) that would mess readers up a little, since the US film is also 1997, but not as much as the proposed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no legitimate reasoning within any Wikipedia policy or guideline that would support such a move. Not to mention, the film's actual title is 접속, not The Contact. Not to mention, even the OP's reasoning is flawed: The Contact already lists 3 items with that title. And as with any generic title, "Contact" and "The Contact" must remain disambiguation pages, per standard Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I see three topics (a novel and two films) entitled "The Contact" that are listed on the dab page, and I see no indication that this one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2015 (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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contact (1997 American film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]