Talk:London Dreams
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Secret of success in topic Merger proposal
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Movie title
edit
ResolvedWhy does the article title need the words "(2009 film)" in it since I cannot think of any ambiguity in just having the title "London Dreams"? --Siddhant (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I support the move back to the previous title. The reason cited for the move was "Another in-production film with same title exists", which isn't justified. I can't find any online sources which indicate any other film with the same title is in production. Even if there is, there isn't any article to support that. - Managerarc talk 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the quick reply Managerarc. --Siddhant (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was no consensus. Secret of success (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to merge the article London Dreams (soundtrack) into this article London Dreams. The content together is better for reading. Also the destination page size can accommodate merger. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support: The controversy section can be mentioned in the article and for the rest, again, the soundtrack section, but I fail to see any "looking long" issues here and the article sure has value. Secret of success 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Article has got good content. Thanks. - VivvtTalk 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: The London Dreams (soundtrack) article is notable, well written and has got a good content, therefore it deserves its own page space. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 12:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Also, the London Dreams (soundtrack) article is well-structured and most importantly, well-referenced. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 16:05, 21 June 2012 (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.