Talk:Vance and Nettie Palmer

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Perry Middlemiss in topic Untitled

Untitled

edit

What are the arguments for and against having Vance and Nettie Palmer (single article) versus Vance and Nettie Palmer (i.e. two seperate articles)? --Sam

In Australia they have been invariably treated as a couple, there are three biographies and several works of lit crit, all treating them as a couple. We could have redirects from Vance Palmer and Nettie Palmer. Adam 00:37, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that this warrants a single article. A lot of detail that is usually available at a glance is missing from the way that this is structured. I do not see why they should not have individual biographical entries. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. They are both highly significant literary figures in their own right and should have separate pages which link to each other. Treating them 'as a couple' diminishes them both. Their individual oeuvres and contributions to Australian literary culture should follow the usual template which makes it quite clear which of them did what. There are numerous examples of literary couples in Wikipedia who are not combined like this: George Johnson & Charmian Clift; Sylvia Plath & Ted Hughes etc. --ANZLitLovers (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also agree, though very late in the piece. I'll see what I can come up with. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Separate (non-directing) pages have now been created for both Vance Palmer and Nettie Palmer. If there are no objections within the next week I'll request that the "Vance and Nettie Palmer" page be deleted from the wiki. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you took content from this page, deletion would be strictly impossible, since it would be needed to maintain an author list for attribution, per the licence. (And you need to note that content was taken from here in the editor summaries of the split pages). WilyD 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Okay, that makes sense. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply