This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The individual albums are not independently notable. They are part of music of the television series, Heroes. Even with upcoming Heroes Reborn, both music articles should be merged to this article. --George Ho (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack has 5 independent sources; that should establish notability. Some can probably be found for the score as well. On a technical note, we can't merge to this article; The score would have to be copied to the soudtrack article, then moved here. (On that note, I blanked the content, as it now lives without attribution.) -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not a criterium for inclusion. The same goes for sources. If there are third party sources discussing the subject, notability is met. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}17:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right, really. While there aren't any specific size requirements for notability, an article being very small is a valid rationale for merging back into a parent article. Just talking conceptually here, I haven't looked into these articles yet. That being said, not being familiar with Heroes or its offshoot media, and the article currently being blanked, I'm having a hard time figuring out all the articles and content involved here... Sergecross73msg me13:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to do the RFC, but I can't without going neutral. And both articles are totally neglected as is. I still don't see the point of preserving both articles other than... ownership perhaps? George Ho (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an RFC. The proposal is still active. The point is we cannot move text around by copying and pasting; the license under which Wikipedia's content is published requires that all content is attributed to its editors. That is done in the article's history. When we merge article, it is important that these histories are merged as well, ohterwise, parts of the text can no longer be traced to their authors. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}08:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so it seems pretty simple here. We've got 2 paths to take. If we all agree that the articles are in awful shape separately (my stance), then lets get someone to do a histmerge and call it good. If someone opposes to the merger, then lets start up an RFC. Sergecross73msg me14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said an RFC is required. But its helpful in situations like this, where there's two editors talking circles and making no progress one way or another. Also, I can't help but think this really isn't that high traffic of an area. Even after notifying a relative active WikiProject, I'm still the only one who's bothered to comment... Sergecross73msg me18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is. I note that the previous sections had another participant, who opposed the merge, but there is still plenty of consensus with policy-based argument. True, Edokter, a merge doesn't require an RfC, but neither does it require a history merge, fortunately. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (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.
Merge - Both articles are little more than tracklists and a short amount of prose that basically paraphrase the track list and release some factoids about credits and release dates. There's nothing of substance. Even with the small amount of sources present, like the AllMusic "review", is little more than a paragraph that lists off some of the artists. There's just very little there. I wouldn't even object to merging it back to the parent article of the show itself, but that is a bit large already... Sergecross73msg me13:14, 18 September 2015 (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 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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Music of Heroes. 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:
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.