Talk:William Lloyd Webber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Last Name
I am sorry to repeat myself (cf. Talk:Julian Lloyd Webber and Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber#Miscellany), but as with Andrew Lloyd Webber, William's last name is Webber, not Lloyd Webber. As his son Julian states in an interview [1], "Lloyd" is the middle name. --FordPrefect42 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- But professionally, as stated in your reference, the family use the names Lloyd Webber. This is also evident across the internet cf: Google Lloyd Webber as opposed to Webber - all music encyclopaedias including Grove list them under L for Lloyd Webber. While Williams middle name was Lloyd, there was obviously a move to keep Lloyd Webber as a professional surname for his sons and they are all referred to as the Lloyd Webber family. Why wikipedia should single itself out as being the only source to catagorise them under Webber I haven't got a clue. Even the Webber disambig page doesn't mention William or Julian. If you were searching for Andrew Lloyd Webber would you really look for Andrew Webber?
Read the article Andrew Lloyd Webber and count the references to Lloyd Webber did this/that...
Why haven't you changed these to Webber? Mdcollins1984 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tried once, but I really don't have the time to watch the article at every instant and revert every attack of vandalism and/or stupidity. Call me inconsequent if you like, I would prefer to have this question settled once and for all. Concerning your Google and references arguments: "Eat shit, millions of flies can't be wrong!" Or, to put it less drastically: if a piece of malinformation is reproduced millionfold, it still is erroneous. You are wrong btw concerning the reference: it does not state the family uses the name Lloyd Webber. It rather states that William adopted the double name professionally, but there is no statement how exactly the sons have adopted the middle name. Anyway, for the moment the cited interview is the best source concerning this question. Your assertion that there was "obviously a move" is pure speculation. Convince me of the opposite, but give me good reason: give me facts! --FordPrefect42 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
