Talk:Lux Aeterna (Requiem for a Dream)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
I don't think this one track need to be separated from the Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack) article. One reason for the RfaD(s) article was to collect the uses of this track, which had started to clutter up both the Requiem for a Dream film & Clint Mansell pages. But now it is yet another page removed from this, and the link is not obvious.
Unless a valid argument for separating this track from the album page is given, I will re-merge it back. The Yeti 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's because this is the track that Requiem for a Dream is most famous for - I highly doubt that any track other than Lux Aeterna has been used in such a widespread fashion. Even from the soundtrack page: "Lux Æterna" has since become extremely popular, with both the original and the remix having appeared in a wide variety of commercials and trailers.
In my opinion, that makes it notable enough to merit its own article. Plus, it reduces clutter from the soundtrack article when 90% is about LA. Will 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't know -- although I have been working on cleaning up this article, I don't really see why it's better here than as a "Lux Aeterna"-specific subsection of the soundtrack article. I find it unlikely that this page -- little more than a stub -- will ever expand into a full-fledge article. ~CS 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- When people try to do internet searches on "that music from The Two Towers / Sunshine / etc trailer", they are most likely to find the answer Requiem for a Dream or Requiem for a Tower; not Lux Aeterna. That is a good reason to merge it back, as the whole point of Wikipedia is to help people find info on a topic.
-
-
-
- And the fact that one of the "other uses" had to be moved from here back to RfaD(s) sort of invalidates the first reply given to the proposal above.
-
-
-
- Besides, the original location [RfaD(s)] was - firstly not that long anyway, and - secondly only been in existence for a couple of weeks. The Yeti 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- imdb forums ... virtually all call it Requiem for a Dream/Tower. Lux Aeterna is only added as an afterthought, if at all.
- [1][2][3][4] Please state a stronger case, or else its going to be merged The Yeti 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMDB isn't a reliable source, and neither are message boards. Besides, you can't merge back, as there is no consensus. The track is notable enough as it has been used independent of the film in at least three works. From what I can see, you're not arguing the notability, you're arguing the name. If that's the case, just create a redirect, then. Will 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst imdb forums may not be 'reliable', it does give a good indication of how people look for the soundtrack. It may be notable, but not of such notability to need its own page. The consensus is both for and against, but there never seemed an overwhelming need to split it from RfaD(s) in the first place, for arguments listed above. Maybe a question should have been asked in the talk page of RfaD(s) prior to splitting ? As for rename/redirect - what to ? The RfaD(s) page was sufficient, and I would suggest remerging it & set up a redirect for LA(RfaD) The Yeti 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although Lux Aeterna is certainly the most popularly significant track on the soundtrack, it is intrinsically part of the soundtrack and there is nothing special in the Lux Aeterna article that warrants its distinction from the main article. It would be of much better use, as well as more accessible, as a subsection of the main RfaD(s) article. As well, since the main article is relatively bare in terms of content, the two articles' distinction is proof of a failure to be concise, something that should be eliminated if at all possible. Iamthedeus 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't need anything "special" in the article. The track is notable, and I think the use in last night's trailer for LOST pretty much affirms it. Use in trailers for Emmy winning television shows and Oscar winning movies (and some that haven't, but are notable), in my opinion, passes WP:N. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It meets WP:N as Will says. I see no benefit to a merger. Matthew 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have to agree that it is better as is. Iamthedeus 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this talk page is cluttered. I fully support the merger, as I believe that although this may be a notable recording from the original soundtrack, it is still part of the soundtrack and should be put in the original soundtrack article. And, in disagreement with Will and Matthew, I do NOT think it meets WP:N, because in the first paragraph, it states Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Just because it has been used in a few movies, and is famous, does not mean that it should not be merged into the original soundtrack article.WiiAlbanyGirl 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who only found this piece of music through this page, I am strongly against a merger. I feel this piece of music is notable enough to warrant it's own page. Thank you. Arawn 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this talk page is cluttered. I fully support the merger, as I believe that although this may be a notable recording from the original soundtrack, it is still part of the soundtrack and should be put in the original soundtrack article. And, in disagreement with Will and Matthew, I do NOT think it meets WP:N, because in the first paragraph, it states Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Just because it has been used in a few movies, and is famous, does not mean that it should not be merged into the original soundtrack article.WiiAlbanyGirl 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have to agree that it is better as is. Iamthedeus 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It meets WP:N as Will says. I see no benefit to a merger. Matthew 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't need anything "special" in the article. The track is notable, and I think the use in last night's trailer for LOST pretty much affirms it. Use in trailers for Emmy winning television shows and Oscar winning movies (and some that haven't, but are notable), in my opinion, passes WP:N. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although Lux Aeterna is certainly the most popularly significant track on the soundtrack, it is intrinsically part of the soundtrack and there is nothing special in the Lux Aeterna article that warrants its distinction from the main article. It would be of much better use, as well as more accessible, as a subsection of the main RfaD(s) article. As well, since the main article is relatively bare in terms of content, the two articles' distinction is proof of a failure to be concise, something that should be eliminated if at all possible. Iamthedeus 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst imdb forums may not be 'reliable', it does give a good indication of how people look for the soundtrack. It may be notable, but not of such notability to need its own page. The consensus is both for and against, but there never seemed an overwhelming need to split it from RfaD(s) in the first place, for arguments listed above. Maybe a question should have been asked in the talk page of RfaD(s) prior to splitting ? As for rename/redirect - what to ? The RfaD(s) page was sufficient, and I would suggest remerging it & set up a redirect for LA(RfaD) The Yeti 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- IMDB isn't a reliable source, and neither are message boards. Besides, you can't merge back, as there is no consensus. The track is notable enough as it has been used independent of the film in at least three works. From what I can see, you're not arguing the notability, you're arguing the name. If that's the case, just create a redirect, then. Will 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I suggest this page remains separate from Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack). This is a notable piece which has been used elsewhere, too.54UV1K 07:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rfadost.jpg
Image:Rfadost.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
