Talk:Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Requested move: argue from Wikipedia:Article titles |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
[[Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill]] → [[Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill]] – Per [[Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane#Move?]], some may oppose this proposal. Nevertheless, I am against inclusion of "Relationship of..." per many soap opera couples, such as [[Luke and Laura]] and [[Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio]], and ''Cheers'' couple, [[Sam and Diane]]. Even exclusion of it is easier to type than inclusion of it. Almost no one is aware of it; I don't think an average computer user can type a current title this way. Would [[WP:COMMONNAME]] be a valid point or ignored per [[WP:IAR]]? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
[[Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill]] → [[Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill]] – Per [[Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane#Move?]], some may oppose this proposal. Nevertheless, I am against inclusion of "Relationship of..." per many soap opera couples, such as [[Luke and Laura]] and [[Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio]], and ''Cheers'' couple, [[Sam and Diane]]. Even exclusion of it is easier to type than inclusion of it. Almost no one is aware of it; I don't think an average computer user can type a current title this way. Would [[WP:COMMONNAME]] be a valid point or ignored per [[WP:IAR]]? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''; the title must describe the subject accurately. The article is not about the musicians individually, but about their relationship; thus, the title should say "relationship of", because that's the subject. If you can find a source that says "Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill is one of the most influential partnerships in Christian rock" (parallel to what many sources say about [[Lennon–McCartney]]), I'm open to changing my mind. But I don't think that's likely. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''; the title must describe the subject accurately. The article is not about the musicians individually, but about their relationship; thus, the title should say "relationship of", because that's the subject. If you can find a source that says "Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill is one of the most influential partnerships in Christian rock" (parallel to what many sources say about [[Lennon–McCartney]]), I'm open to changing my mind. But I don't think that's likely. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Neutral''' It makes sense. To the best of my knowledge, article names don't have to describe the subject accurately. If someone can point me to where it says that in [[Wikipedia:Article titles]] I'll support that position. However the length breaks the guideline conciseness and as George Ho points out it breaks the guideline of consistency. However it's not natural to shorten it and it certainly isn't precise when shorter. So two guidelines in favour and two opposed to the change which is why I'm neutral. Show me an argument that causes me to change my position. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:58, 5 February 2012
 | Christian music Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill be renamed and moved to Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill → Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill – Per Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane#Move?, some may oppose this proposal. Nevertheless, I am against inclusion of "Relationship of..." per many soap opera couples, such as Luke and Laura and Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio, and Cheers couple, Sam and Diane. Even exclusion of it is easier to type than inclusion of it. Almost no one is aware of it; I don't think an average computer user can type a current title this way. Would WP:COMMONNAME be a valid point or ignored per WP:IAR? --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose; the title must describe the subject accurately. The article is not about the musicians individually, but about their relationship; thus, the title should say "relationship of", because that's the subject. If you can find a source that says "Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill is one of the most influential partnerships in Christian rock" (parallel to what many sources say about Lennon–McCartney), I'm open to changing my mind. But I don't think that's likely. Powers T 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral It makes sense. To the best of my knowledge, article names don't have to describe the subject accurately. If someone can point me to where it says that in Wikipedia:Article titles I'll support that position. However the length breaks the guideline conciseness and as George Ho points out it breaks the guideline of consistency. However it's not natural to shorten it and it certainly isn't precise when shorter. So two guidelines in favour and two opposed to the change which is why I'm neutral. Show me an argument that causes me to change my position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)