Talk:Dust of Angels

Requested move 18 December 2016

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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Dust of Angels (film) → Dust of Angels – WP:TWODABS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Actually the article for the soundtrack should probably be merged to this article as it has no reference and no indication of independent notability. Timmyshin (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Add image - that's a bigger priority. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious move. As the nom says, the only other article called "Dust of Angels" besides the movie is the (unreferenced) article on its soundtrack.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment well having added a movie poster, some plot, sourced both articles I'd say leave well alone. Both are notable, both are going to be difficult to find already since the Chinese 少年吔，安啦 has zero connection with the English name. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The soundtrack was based on the film, and its page should be merged. Also, the hatnote should be added about angel dust. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2016 (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.

RFC: Merging Dust of Angels (soundtrack) into this article

MERGED:

Although involved, I see that the whole consensus agreed to merge both pages. --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

There was a previous discussion about merging Dust of Angels (soundtrack) into this article(permalink of discussion). However, it seems it didn't attract any input, despite leaving notices at multiple WikiProjects. As such, this RFC seeks to clarify the question,

Should Dust of Angels (soundtrack) be merged into this article ?

Please respond as

• Merge (for merging "Dust of Angels (soundtrack)" into "Dust of Angels")
• Do not merge for keeping both as standalone articles
• Other for any other solutions such as page rename or a different merge direction

Please keep any threaded discussions in the appropriate section. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey (no extended discussions here please)

• Merge - Despite concerns about alleged "undue weight", very little sources discuss the soundtrack. Too much emphasis on one song doesn't make the soundtrack independently notable. --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - The articles are short enough for a merge. And I don't think including the soundtrack in the article of the movie would be undue weight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do not merge. It is normal for Wikipedia to have standalone articles for soundtracks is the soundtrack has notability beyond that of the movie as this one does (cf. other 1992 soundtracks). Also consider WP:WEIGHT of the two articles. —  AjaxSmack  01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - Its a brief stub with a track list and barely any sources. Would reconsider stance if/when it's significantly expanded out with content and sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge, as things currently stand in the two articles. There are plenty of examples where a film and its soundtrack album have separate articles, which I think is entirely correct if the album was and is sufficiently notable in its own right. Grease, Saturday Night Fever, Purple Rain are obvious examples – the soundtracks were hugely successful. But I can't see that that's the situation here (and I'm not gauging notability by commercial success, by any means). From the relatively few film and/or soundtrack articles I've worked on, I'd put Dust of Angels in the "combined" category, like Raga and Everest (1998). Although, with Raga, there is a case for separating the two (given that there are further details to add for the soundtrack), and perhaps this might be true also of Dust of Angels. If we can get a whole lot more description and commentary from reliable sources, then I'd probably be saying don't merge – but does this extra content exist? JG66 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge per JG66. I think his analysis is 100% on point. I think many other soundtrack articles don't merit a separate article. Soundtrack articles really require quite significant independent cultural notability and the accompanying commentary—and, to JG66's main point, inclusion of that commentary on the article page itself. For the time being, it would better suit both articles to be merged. —BLZ · talk 19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Summoned by bot, I agree with consensus above. The soundtrack as a whole doesn't stand strongly on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: Not sure if this is the place for this, but I think it's kind of related to the merge discussion so I just thought I'd bring it up. If the soundtrack article is merged into this article, then the non-free justification for File:DustOfAngelsSoundtrackCDCover.jpg will need to be revisited per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Generally, the cover art for soundtracks albums is pretty regularly removed from film articles for the reasons given in WP:NFC#cite_note-2 and because of WP:NFCC#8. I'm not saying the the removal is automatic, but it is generally easier to justify non-free use of album cover art when it's being used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the album itself, then when it's being added to sections of other related articles. Of course, this should not be a reason for not merging the article, but in the past it seems as if similar merges simply resulted in "moving" the content (including the infobox) for the album to a subsection of a film's article without any consideration given to the non-free use of the album cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment while I haven't looked into this particular case, I will say that soundtracks in general should only have their own articles when they meet WP:Notability (music). This means that in addition to having significant coverage requirement from multiple reliable secondary sources, they need to have confirmed titles, track lists, and release dates. Some soundtracks warrant their own articles while others don't. They should be judged on a case-by-case basis and don't have automatic notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merging make sense at this time in the historical record, as film and soundtrack are integrally interwoven regarding notability. Netherzone (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• @AjaxSmack: There is an obvious consensus to merge the soundtrack article. Shall I merge right away? George Ho (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, by all means. —  AjaxSmack  01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust of Angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710235517/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1508/year/1992.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1508/year/1992.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)