Talk:The Story of a Small Town

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

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge song?

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.

See Armbrust (talk · contribs)'s close below noting "[t]here is no consensus for merging the song into the article". I've combined the three sections under a single section since they are related. Cunard (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although notable, Small Town Story (song) is currently small enough to fit into The Story of a Small Town. Perhaps I would welcome expansion of the article, including addition of the charts and releases of the song as vinyl singles, especially for those opposing. Notability of the song may be important, but the article content matters more. Reworded --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) ~~--George Ho (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. As per WP:RFC, RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded. You might want to reword the RFC so that it's not so biased. You can argue your case when you vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given the amount of content in these two articles and the very close relationship between the film and song, it makes sense to me to merge. If the volume of content gets too much, the song can always be split off as a separate article but I would agree that there is limited value at this time. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's a tiny article, and it'd fit into this one fine. As noted, they could be separated out in the future should they get unwieldy, but until such an (unlikely) point, I see no reason why they shouldn't be one article. drewmunn talk 14:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep separate~~ The extreme similarity of the two titles leads us to overrate the similarity of content. If the song was titled "Handbag Emergency" perhaps we'd think differently. There's a great number of notable soundtrack songs that merit and do have Wikipedia entries of their own. -The Gnome (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "notable" songs need their own articles. We're not sure why else the film theme song is written, and analyses of the song are yet to be found. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent notability of a soundtrack song is to be gauged on the basis, as usual, of outside, reliable sources. I leave this task to the interested editors. I strongly disagree with the reasons offered for the merging ("it's small enough", "it's a tiny article", etc). If that were the case, most stubs would have been incorporated into "larger" articles. Size does not matter - at least not in Wikipedia. :-) The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Weakly Merge after re-reviewing both articles. The entry for the song is filled up with unnecessary references that give it an unduly large size. I would not object to a merger. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It doest appear to have enough notability for it's own article. If enough sources are found that meet notability guidelines, then it should be very easy to split the article again. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed discussion

In my opinion, the above merge discussion was flawed. Before George Ho proposed the merge, he actually did merge/copy all of the information from the song page to this film page, even though he was told not to in various edit summaries. This was premature, and it likely influenced the voters' comments because the information in the articles may have appeared to be more similar than they would have been otherwise. Because of this, I undid the merge. The song information should be removed from this page before another merge is proposed. And if George Ho does start more discussions like this in the future, I hope he follows the proper procedure so that he doesn't waste other people's time like he has just done. - PM800 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the procedure followed. RfC's are typically preceded by strong disagreements on content, which often result in edit wars. For example, as far as I'm concerned in offering my opinion, I was not affected in the slightest by the history of the disagreement or past edits. In fact, I did not even look up the page's history. -The Gnome (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge song again?

There is no consensus for merging the song into this article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Since the prior discussion becomes invalid, I removed the passage about song from this article. I must propose and say again: While the song is well-known, the song was part of the film, as well. Relisted again. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)To be clear, despite its fame, the song is inherently not notable enough to stand-alone. There should be sources that cover its lyrics and meaning, composition, production, etc. Otherwise, a merge must occur again. Relisted for RfC. Stroke comments as too biased. --George Ho (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate: As shown by its coverage in multiple reliable sources, the song actually is notable on its own, separate from the film page. Its fame does not have much to do with the film. Furthermore, just because it was part of the film doesn't mean that it cannot have its own article. There are many other songs in soundtracks which have their own articles on Wikipedia. As far as George Ho's claim that there should be more sources, I would like to point out that the song's article is well-sourced and has more inline citations than this film article. - PM800 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PM800: I added the RFC tag and stroke some of my comments. --George Ho (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly Merge The entry for the song is filled up with unnecessary references that give it an unduly large size. I would not object to a merger. -The Gnome (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.