Talk:Coverdale–Page (band)

Irk

Really? Since there is no reference for this statement it should be removed. Besides it is rumour and I am sure that Wikipedia endorse rumour and hearsay... The collaboration began at the suggestion of John Kalodner. It says so in Kalodner's biog: http://www.johnkalodner.com/biography/biography.html. Also both Jimmy Page and Whitesnake (US & Canada) were signed to Geffen Records at the time... Reeferboy (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Coverdale Page

Should this not be listed under Coverdale Page or Coverdale-Page ? The same sort of question applies to the corresponding album, Coverdale & Page (album) - I think - probably ?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree. My search was for "Coverdale/Page" PCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.68 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coverdale•Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216005812/http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/index.php?m=assorted3 to http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/index.php?m=assorted3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED to Coverdale–Page; consensus is that an en-dash is the correct mark to use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Coverdale•Page → Coverdale/Page
• Coverdale•Page (album) → Coverdale/Page (album)

– Wikipedia:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. Or perhaps Coverdale–Page and Coverdale–Page (album). The bullet is not typically supported on keyboards. It is also not used consistently in reliable sources that discuss the topic (independent or otherwise). Incidentally, do the collaboration and the album really need separate articles, and is the collaboration really the primary topic in preference to the album? —BarrelProof (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Most Google hits seem to use a forward slash or a hyphen, or less commonly an ampersand or a space. I'd also support a merge into the album article, I don't see that a short lived collaboration such as this requires a separate article. PC78 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Although there would be little advantage in using an en dash since this character is also not typically supported on a normal keyboard. Coverdale-Page (with a hyphen) already exists in any case. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • However, the Wikipedia Manual of Style (in MOS:ENDASH) says "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash", and WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS does not say to avoid en dashes. Instead it says to use redirects to aid navigation when they are used. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Of course, I'm not suggesting we don't use an en dash, merely pointing out that this doesn't help with the first part of your nom rationale. Readers using the search box will likely arrive at the article via the hypen redirect in either case. :) PC78 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that the similar Unledded collaboration does not have a separate article. I don't really notice anything in this article that shouldn't be in an article about the Coverdale–Page album. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Page and Plant. Although that collaboration did consist of more than one album. A better example might be the Robert Plant and Alison Krauss collaboration, which is covered entiely by the Raising Sand article. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: If sources use something other than a slash, then that should probably be used as the title as slashes cause some issues on talk page (see WP:NC-SLASH). --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• En dash is the standard punctuation for connecting two parallel names, as indicated in other styles variously by dot, slash, spaced hyphen, or unspaced hyphen. Let's use en dash per MOS:DASH. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. As a matter of proper punctuation for a collaboration or dual crediting, the en dash is the usual convention in English (e.g., per Epstein–Barr, Black–Scholes, and Gauss–Newton), and Wikipedia generally tries to follow normal English conventions when the sources are mixed. After further thought, I should have made that my primary proposal suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.