Talk:Long Gone (instrumental)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Move to Long Gone (instrumental)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. Ucucha 16:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Gone (1948 song) → Long Gone (instrumental) — An instrumental is not a song. All the proposed titles are unambiguous, because there is no article for other instrumentals by the same name. Furthermore, even if these were songs, Long Gone (song), Mudmen (song), Signs of Life (song) and Weeping Wall (song) would still be unambiguous, so there is no reason to disambiguate further. Jafeluv (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Comment that greatly depends on what you would call a song. For many people, any tune is a song. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, but by definition a song always contains lyrics. See dictionary definitions for "song": "a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing"; "a brief composition written or adapted for singing"; "a short musical composition of words and music"; "a musical piece with lyrics". Also see song and instrumental. While Wikipedia is written for a general audience instead of specialists, I think we should be using correct terms when we can. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty neutral (the idea that an instrumental is not a song is new to me), but I did want to point out, for what it's worth, that among the entries in Category:Instrumentals and its subcategories, almost all are disambiguated with (song) instead of (instrumental) or something else. It seems to me a better way to handle the issue might be to discuss at one of the WikiProjects whether all instrumentals disambiguated as "(song)" should be retitled, instead of just tackling these four examples. (And I fully agree that as a minimum, these should be retitled Long Gone (song), etc., if there's no reason to be more specific.) Propaniac (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I'm planning a mass-nomination of the rest of the bunch soon enough. I just wanted to start with a few that clearly need to be changed one way or the other, to find out with the least amount of disruption if there are any reasonable objections. Jafeluv (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still seems to me that the way to accomplish both of those goals - low disruption, reasonable objections - is to avoid doing any moves until you've brought it up with the people who are most likely to care, which would seem to be the Songs or Music WikiProject. If you succeed in moving articles because the people who would have objections aren't aware of the discussion until AFTER it takes place, it could be way more messy. And if it turns out that their consensus is in agreement with you, it should be a lot easier to move forward. Anyway, I'm not planning to involve myself further, but I am going to leave a note at the WP:SONGS Talk page about this discussion. Propaniac (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), which I presume would fall under WikiProject Music "jurisdiction", actually advises the use of "(composition)" and "(instrumental)" for compositions without lyrics, so it's not like we're discussing a change to the guideline here. Of course, I don't object to leaving a note to the relevant wikiproject's talk page for more participants. Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit bizarre in my mind but the guidelines are clear and they do suggest that this action be taken.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support providing it doesn't mean two entries for tunes notable as both instrumental and with words - and there are quite a few of them. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.