This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofthe Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns
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]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by47.14.42.32 (talk)16:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove 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.BD2412T19:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. "The Meek Cutoff" and "Meek's Cutoff" are used interchangeably in contemporaneous texts. (Seehere, 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 derivesfrom 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]
I'm not sure on what basis you assert which isthe 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 yields9 results (8 after discarding an obvious duplicate) for "Meek's" and4 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'sSunset 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. TheSunset 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."
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)[reply]
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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak Support. The nomination is incorrect,Meek's Cutoff is currently aprimary redirect toMeek Cutoff as an alternative name for the route that is the namesake of the film. The question is whether the film or the route is the primary topic for this specific spelling, which was addressed at length previously in the above RM with no consensus. I am torn, but I do believe the common name for the route is "Meek Cutoff" based on the evidence in the prior discussion, which in my mind allows the film to be the primary topic for "Meek's Cutoff" viaWP:SMALLDETAILS. The counterargument is that even for a less common spelling, the route is clearly the primary topic in terms of long term significance, given that it is the topic of the film.Mdewman6 (talk)00:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor formatting differences between two closely-related topics do not generally make good disambiguation. Also note that the nominator is a blocked sock.* Pppery *it has begun...23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
