Talk:Red Detachment of Women (ballet)

According to the Chinese version

of Wikipedia, the novel is actually based on the story of the "中国工农红军第二独立师第三团女子特务连", established on Hainan island in 1931. Its leaders were arrested and imprisoned by Chiang in 1933, and were released after the Xi'an Incident. Many of them died during the war against the Japanese invasion, some who survived married KMT soldiers, and were targets of attack during the Cultural revolution. After 1976, all of the remaining ones were rehabilitated, some even personally met with Jiang Zeming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2017

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: no consensus the central discussion here was based around whether or not there was a primary topic for this article. After over a months discussion, no consensus has formed by those participating in the discussion as to whether or not the facts and sources here have established a primary topic to justify the proposed move. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

---

• Red Detachment of Women (ballet) → Red Detachment of Women
• Red Detachment of Women → Red Detachment of Women (disambiguation)

– The ballet is surely the primary meaning. The 1970 film version is and adaptation of it. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment there is an earlier 1961 film, and this page says the ballet is based on that one. The 1961 film is based on a book with no Wikipedia page.Randy Kryn 16:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Liang Xin only wrote a scenario for the 1961 original film as far as I can see, not a novel. But having said that, don't really see why we should ambiguate the ballet when the original 1961 film is the source of all three works. It's not as if (ballet) is a bad title for an article on a ballet... In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That does not clinch the argument, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose sorry, no it doesn't, but 64% of views and not being the original work, nor more important for film rather than dance readers, and the downside of disabling the dabbot, all add up to keeping the articles recognizably titled and not ambiguating this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The ballet get more than double the pageviews of both films combined.[1] (Both films also use "The" as part of their titles.) Station1 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the 1961 film was quite influential too. The novel, and the real life detachment that the whole story is based on, are also credible contenders for primary topic if their articles are created. -Zanhe (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In addition to getting twice the page views of both films combined, a quick look across Google Books strongly suggests that the ballet is the most significant among the topics, as most of the sources that turn up are describing it.[2]--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "Getting twice the page views of both films combined" only means 66% of the traffic, not enough to be primary topic in my opinion. Timmyshin (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SMALLDETAILS. A decent primary topic argument could be made just on the basis of cultural significance, but the additional use of the "the" in the film titles, means that there is no need for disambiguation in the page title. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"The" doesn't exist in Chinese and therefore isn't consistent in sources regarding these three works. "The" is a difference we have manufactured. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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.