Talk:Star Wars (soundtrack)

Fair use rationale for Image:Star Wars 1977 release.jpg

Image:Star Wars 1977 release.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Holst influence

There is no mention of Gustav Holst as being an influence for Williams. Yet, if you listen, the motiv of most of the song are directly taken from motiv from some of the Planets works of the same composer. Need clarifications. 09/01/01 - 16:00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.142.130 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article name move

This article should be renamed some form of Star Wars (film) (soundtrack) to match the title of the recently moved film page Star Wars (film) per consensus at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (soundtrack) → Star Wars (soundtrack) – "Star Wars" and "A New Hope" are one and the same title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Star Wars" itself could be referring to the movie franchise as a whole, or even another movie in the series (since all films have "star wars" in their titles). "Episode IV: A New Hope" specifies from which movie the soundtrack is, so in my view, we should leave it be. Twyfan714 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. No one would mistake it for another film, but some might wonder about the franchise. The first sentence of the article should clear that up. It could also be called Star Wars (1977 film soundtrack) to make it completely clear to all. In any case the soundtrack article name should match as closely as possible the film article name. The subtitle "A New Hope" should not be used as it did not exist in 1977 when the original was released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: That actually is a valid point. I agree that we should have something specifying that we are talking about the film and not the franchise itself. I also agree that "A New Hope" was not originally what the film was called, so the soundtrack shouldn't have that either. I would even take it one step further and maybe consider having the article titled "Star Wars (film soundtrack)". It's short and concise enough, without causing any confusion over whether it is referring to the franchise or not. With that in mind, I would say I support the move, just not having the title as general as just "Star Wars (soundtrack)". Twyfan714 (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)