Talk:Oral-formulaic composition

Requested move

Oral-Formulaic Composition → Oral tradition — The new name is a synonym, and a much more common term with a much better developed article —DavidOaks (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. See Talk:Oral poetry#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Seeing as Oral tradition already exists, isn't this a merge proposal rather than a move? Paulbrock (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so -- maybe I got the wrong term (never tried this manouver before). I've just been observing that Oral-formulaic composition is used in the literature to refer to to Oral tradition, though the latter's much more common. Just an effort to get everything on the topic in one place. DavidOaks (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Lord and Parry. This is a specific technique; oral tradition is a genre. To merge entirely would be to remove this article, which should contain an explanation of the technique, including the claim that each formula has a specific place in the metrical line. The extent to which Oral-formulaic composition (and we should lower-case) exists, and the strictness with which oral cultures actually apply it, should be discussed in one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge notices removed

I have taken down the merge notices - no attention has been given to merging in nearly a year, and for myself I'm convinced this is a good topic in its own right. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)