Talk:Gasp (2009 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 Chinese cinema task force.

China: Cinema Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Link problems

THIS LINKS TO A MAN WHO DIED IN 107 AD

WHAT THE FUCK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.52.45 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one who died in 649. Apparently more than one person has existed in the past 1900 years with the same name. I've delinked those two, since I don't see any other page about the correct person with that name. DMacks (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moves performed: Gasp moved to Gasp (film) and Gasp (disambiguation) moved to Gasp. I gave particular weight to the statements that the Chinese movie is not the primary topic for "Gasp", as these arguments are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines on naming, and there was no evidence provided to indicate that the movie is the primary topic. Additionally, when I looked at the pages that link to Gasp, I found two links from medical articles that were attempting to link to "Gasp" as a symptom. On balance, it would be better for those links to point to a disambiguation page than to a Chinese movie. Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp → Gasp (movie) — English WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word "gasp" is almost certainly the meaning related to breathing (which is dictdef/wiktionary, no WP page), not a Chinese movie with no clear claim of notability. So move long-standing page about movie to a parenthetical disambiguated name and instead place DAB page as main. No need to keep the (disambiguation) page as a redir...I only created it today before I realized how poor a choice the existing was for simple-name. DMacks (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp (disambiguation) → Gasp

Support The Chinese film stub is definately not the primary topic. Move should be to Gasp (film) rather than Gasp (movie), as per WP:NCP. City of Destruction 15:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if the page is moved, the new title should be Gasp (film). Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct users to the Wikipedia article with the content they're looking for. As far as I can tell and as far as the disambiguation page indicates, there is no article with information about gasping. If users want to read a dictionary definition of the word "gasp," they should consult a dictionary. But of the three uses listed on the disambiguation page, I would guess the film is the primary topic. Propaniac (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When there is no obvious primary topic, I prefer the landing page to be a DAB. Especially when the word is as generic as gasp. Also, the three choices are all fairly obscure. What's the evidence about one of them being primary? Ocaasi (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I admit I'm not that set on the film being the primary topic (although it would be my best guess if I had to make one). My point was really that the page shouldn't be moved on the basis that the primary topic is a dictionary definition about which there is no Wikipedia article, which is the basis presented above. If the reason presented for the move was that none of the three topics in Wikipedia are primary, I probably wouldn't have opposed. I'm not going to change my !vote, but the closing admin is free to take that into account. Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No PT proven. TakakaCounty (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Gasp (film). Not a clear primary topic, and "film" is the correct disambiguator per the naming convention. Jafeluv (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.