Talk:The Green Knight (film)

Requested move 31 July 2021

 * 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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Green Knight (film) → The Green Knight – The Green Knight is currently a redirect to Green Knight which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Green Knight (disambiguation) page. Anyone researching the mythical character will still have direct access by simply typing "Green Knight", "Green knight", "The Green knight" or even "The green knight". On the other hand, anyone wishing to find the film article, will have direct access by typing "The Green Knight" where a hatnote will direct all others — For other uses, see Green Knight (disambiguation). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say Oppose, since this is a film based on the character/poem of the Green Knight. Simply having the “The” in front of the article title doesn’t seem like enough of a differential to me personally. TropicAces (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DIFFCAPS is a guideline which assists us with ​situations like this one. A definite article (i.e. "the") is usually enough of a difference to justify keeping titles as proposed. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per DIFFCAPS and nomination. This would assist me in navigation and I dare say it would likely assist many others also. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How does removing (film) assist anyone to find the film? Please explain. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy. It's a shorter title, thus readers will have to type fewer characters then the alternative. The short description (if searching on mobile) would confirm that they have found the correct page. Per Roman Spinner above, there are four redirects in place which lead to "Green Knight", hence anyone looking for that article will find it. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think extrapolating to "many others" may be pushing it based it on your own experience, but I could be wrong... It definitely doesn't hold true for me.  In my own personal experience, I rarely type a full article title and select one of the dropdown options provided me, which typically appear faster than I type (on a computer, using the arrow keys; on a phone, using a tap).  I would have expected that to be the workflow of most others, but in the same way, that's extrapolating my own way of doing things onto others. -2pou (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment, and I guess I could be wrong in that regard (in the same way you could be also). We'll probably never know which method of searching is more prevalent. What you described is generally how I search for articles here, although that may well be because of my time editing here, and knowing as a result that names of things are often ambiguous. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A difference of only a grammatical article is almost never enough to clearly disambiguate. Also, this feels like recentism for the 2021 film over other works titled The Green Knight. Feel free to adjust the current hatnote to cover the recent film, for a while. -- Netoholic @ 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Green Knight always has "The" so to make the film the WP:PT is a reader value destroying move. Here DIFFCAPS doesn't work, this is a SMALLDETAIL which is inconsistently applied so lack of "The" won't inform in such case. Also WP:RECENT over Green Knight (disambiguation). Who do we benefit by removing (film) from the film and ambiguating the article making it more difficult to find in search results? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since there is another article titled The Green Knight, renaming this one to The Green Knight would cause confusion. Hence, it would not be a wise idea. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with In ictu oculi. Anyone looking for the film finds it immediately with (film); anyone looking for the Arthurian character will find an unnecessary runaround. Manannan67 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The above (11:16, 1 August 2021) argument needs to be addressed: "this feels like recentism for the 2021 film over other works titled The Green Knight." The Green Knight (film), with its high number of searches, is most certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the only two other Wikipedia entries that bear the exact main title header "The Green Knight" — an obscure Danish fairy tale collected in the 19th century and a 1993 out-of-print novel by Iris Murdoch.


 * On the other hand, no claim is being made that The Green Knight (film) is the primary topic over the Arthurian character who would remain the primary topic of the Green Knight (disambiguation) page. The proposed standalone film title "The Green Knight" would be more akin to the standalone stub with the main title header The Greene Knight, which is actually how the Arthurian character's name was originally styled. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I get it. Technically Green Knight doesn't fit into one of the two conventions described at WP:THE, but from a common sense perspective (if not WP:COMMONNAME), Green Knight would theoretically include the definite article. I can't think of any source or use case that would use the term Green Knight without the article the preceding it.  The WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT status quo seems best for The Green Knight.  -2pou (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dabify. I agree with Roman Spinner that now and in the near future the film will overwhelmingly be the most common topic readers are searching for when they look up "The Green Knight" (it's currently getting around 100x as many daily views as Green Knight was getting before the film was announced). But will that still be the case in 20 years? There's a reason for the "long-term significance" prong of WP:PRIMARY. I would lean towards a middle ground of making The Green Knight redirect to Green Knight (disambiguation). It saves a click for the many editors looking for the film, and helps avoid mistargeted wikilinks (at time of writing, we already have one at David Lowery (director)). Colin M (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * DAB namely redirect The Green Knight to Green Knight (disambiguation) per Colin M. The film gets 739,965 views compared with only 179,806 for the figure.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very clear primary redirect to Green Knight. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with In ictu oculi. Anyone looking for the film finds it immediately with (film). Mick gold (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be oppose, so will this discussion be coming to an end soon or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still some hours left before the discussion has been open a full 7 days, and even then it will only be closed by an uninvolved editor. What typically happens is closers will wait until discussions enter the elapsed or backlog sections before looking for closable discussions. -2pou (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Esel or Essel?
I've seen both spellings used throughout sources. MSG17 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Characters
I've changed the wording of the plot. I've just watched the film (great watch by the way!). At no point are the characters named or called Arthur, Guinevere, Morgan le Fay, etc. While the film certainly is based upon the Arthurian legend and might even hint at the characters, we'll have to take the film as is. The credits don't list them either and neither does IMDb. It will need proper third-party coverage. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Lenguajes Español y Latin
Traducción de Lenguajes 2806:105E:15:E084:5568:1836:67B2:4137 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)