Talk:Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:
• Larry Norman
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Larry Norman
Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

Christian music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles

Christianity

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Article names don't have to describe the subject accurately? The only reason I can think of that that would not be made explicit in the guidelines is because it should be obvious. Powers ^T 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the article titles guideline. If you can find a statement to support your claim, I'll be glad to back off. If not, you can either change the guideline or change your position since it's otherwise a personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)‎[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy rather than a guideline. It reads in part The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. True, it doesn't say accurate description, but I think that is the meaning. How, you may ask, is this compatible with our guideline on common names? Quite simply and elegantly: Usage is, in modern linguistics, taken to define meaning, as opposed to the linguistic prescription of past ages. So a common usage is, by definition, accurate. So to say or it may be an accurate description of the topic (my emphasis) would be redundant. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [1] and [2] should help validate anyone's POV. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Both articles refer to the two artists as individuals and make no comment upon their relationship. Powers ^T 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.