Talk:On the Road to Emmaus

	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 Nordic cinema task force.

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page name

Given that this is a film about the famous Biblical reference, a better page name is On the Road to Emmaus (film) as in most other Wikipedia cases where book/film/etc. is added. A simple Google search as well as a simple Google Books search shows that "On the Road to Emmaus" is almost always associated with the biblical passage in Luke:24:13-32 and possibly Mark 16:12-13. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I will move it later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appending (film) to the end of an article's title is only needed if we want to disambiguate a term. There are no other articles on Wikipedia titled On the Road to Emmaus which makes this article not only the primary topic but rather the only topic. There is no need to disambiguate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no article right now because that was a courtesy message I left here before I build the page "On the Road to Emmaus" to discuss the biblical episode. Hence there will then be need for disambig and by all accounts this film will not win over the million biblical references to Emmaus out there. I left the message because I did not want to make a sudden move on the page. But the disambig is just down the road, say 60 minutes away. So given that, perhaps you would like to consider the move. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by the likelyhood of a subject being sought on Wikipedia. Off-Wiki websites and references don't really enter into the equation all that much, what matters is what is the expected result of a user who types "On the Road to Emmaus" in the search box and presses the "Go" button. Per this tool, a quite modest 100 to 200 readers per month visit this article; the visits to the page are a combination of typing "On the Road to Emmaus" in the search box and pressing the "Go" button as well as clicking the "On the Road to Emmaus" link from one of these pages. The above number is very similar to the number of monthly visits to Dog Nail Clipper (another film directed by Markku Pölönen) as well as the monthly visits to Pölönen's own biographical article. Regardless of what's available on Google, Wikipedia statistics lead me to believe that there isn't a large number of readers looking for a biblical entry at this page compared to the number of readers looking for info on Pölönen and his work. To me, this still leaves the film as a primary topic. I would, however, not be opposed to creating a disambiguation page where this article stands and disambiguate all entries with the term "On the Road to Emmaus". What do you think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that this is a lot of work to discuss a film which was probably not a major hit - although I do not know the number of tickets sold. I am not sure how those 200 people got there in April, but "Supper" is 50% or less of that "On the Road" story, which also includes Mark, and the art page there got 1500 hits in April: [1]. But the art page misses the Mark issues, and is mostly about art, as I commented on there before. That is why I am building the biblical page in user space now. After I add the link to Gospel harmony and elsewhere, the number of visits will go up. I think this page as a biblical episode will get somewhere between the 2500 that Myrrhbearers gets [2] and the 10,000 that Empty tomb gets[3] because it will be listed as one of those episodes. I think if we agree soon, we can move this page to have film, else we will just have to ask for a 3rd opinion - which will just take up everyone's time again. In any case, there will be a disambig link at the top, so I do not know what the big deal will be. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the big deal about having the disambiguation term in the title of your new article and keeping this article unchanged? That's the reason for the discussion and I don't think the discussion is fruitless simply because the article is minor in importance. As of right now, this tool shows that every article linking to On the Road to Emmaus intentionally links to the film. Per that and the above numbers showing that there doesn't seem to be a horde of readers looking for biblical references when coming across this film (which, by the way is notable per WP:NF, it need not be a major hit), my personal opinion is that there is no proof of anything other than the film being a primary topic under this title at this point in time. Granted, nothing else exists just yet but I don't see any evidence that the article you're creating should assume that spot. Again, I'm OK with a full disambiguation of any and all terms with this title. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way is to ask for a 3rd opinion. Actually the page (and the disambig) already exist here: User:History2007/gallery1 but I did not want to do a knee-jerk move until it had been discussed. I just did not make them public. I will just state my case below later today and then ask for a 3rd opinion. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion preparation

BigBird: In order to have an objective measure of page access for the editor who will provide the 3rd opinion, I did the following: I built the page as Road to Emmaus appearance, but did not build the disambig page yet. It happens that June 1st is just a few days away. Let us wait 30 days until July 1st. Then we will use the page accesses for June 2010 as a measure of which page will be the "primary" in the disambig. Let us please leave things as they are for a month or so to get a semi-scientific result before we ask for the 3rd opinion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a hatnote at the top of this article for readers who might use "On the Road to Emmaus" as a search string to find the Road to Emmaus appearance article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just pre-emptively voided the scientific experiment that would have determined who would get to be top choice on the disambig page. Please revert that yourself for 30 days so we can see what the users click on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's been voided. With the hatnote in place, the readers who inadvertently end up here while looking for Road to Emmaus appearance can now go to where they want to go and, in case the number of visits is being tracked, their visit will be registered at both articles rather than just this one. A hatnote didn't exist before because there was no other article to which it could link. An article now exists for which some sort of disambiguation may be necessary; I don't think the hatnote is unreasonable. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, us not talk each other death. Let us wait 29 days. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]