Talk:Subdominant parallel

Merger proposal

I propose that Subdominant parallel be merged into Supertonic.

Support - It's just a synonym of Supertonic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It will never be expanded. It's just an alternative name created by Hugo Riemann.--Fauban 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like you are talking to yourself. How does WP:NOTDIC apply? Why wouldn't "supertonic" be merged into "subdominant parallel"? Hyacinth (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe Supertonic wouldn't be the only right choice, because the subdominant parallel is the submediant in minor, so we should make references to both subdominant and submediant. This proposal is itself linked to my view that the articles on tonic, dominant, mediant... should be merged with Diatonic function. Anyway, IMHO WP:NOTDIC applies because that's just a term, a "bit" of Riemann's teory. Shouldn't this fit better in a more extensive article, like Diatonic function (regardless of my more general merging proposal)? Thanks--Fauban 12:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So one might say that this proposal was incomplete, botched/inaccurate, or disingenuous. This is because you said this article should be merged into "Subdominant", but you really mean that it should be merged into "Diatonic function". Hyacinth (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks at a dictionary entry and this article, they do not resemble one another. Hyacinth (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say size is the issue we're talking about. It's about the fact that not every single word should have a separate article. That's one of the main reasons why redirects exist.--Fauban 11:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What justifies separate articles, and what justifies merging? Hyacinth (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]