Talk:London Dreams

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Movie title[edit]

Resolved

Why 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the quick reply Managerarc. --Siddhant (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose: Article has got good content. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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, Kotak kasut. 12:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, the London Dreams (soundtrack) article is well-structured and most importantly, well-referenced. Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 16:05, 21 June 2012 (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.