Talk:The Sun, Moon & Herbs

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

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.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Requested move 30 December 2022

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: not moved. Consensus emerged that the comma-included spelling is the WP:COMMONNAME among reliable sources. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun, Moon & Herbs → The Sun Moon & Herbs – As in the above entry, the album itself does not have a comma in the title. Here it's less obvious from the image, as the front cover doesn't show the title, and Wikipedia has no image of the back cover (which does), but it's telling that the infobox and text of the article omit the comma in the title; only the article name includes it. And as above, any image of the original LP's back cover will verify the lack of comma. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC) CLARIFICATIONS [EDIT]: "the above entry" refers to discussion at Talk:Right Place, Wrong Time (song)#Requested move 30 December 2022 (no longer above), and the infobox and text of the article were edited after I posted this to include the comma. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are preferred by Wikipedia; the album cover isn't a particularly good source. 162 etc. (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that point in general, but an artistic work's canonical title is the one given to it by the artist, not any variations bestowed by others who write about the work (e.g., the Beatles album commonly called the White Album was self-titled by the artists). Shouldn't Wikipedia articles about such works use canonical titles where such are available (as it does with The Beatles (album))? 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia commonly uses names for things that differ in some way from the self-published name provided by the producer/author of the topic. See, for example, WP:NCALBUMS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what section in that link supports adding commas to album and song titles? It's a very long section, but it's subdivided into "Capitalization" and "Disambiguation" topics, neither of which applies here, and outside those subsections has one sentence about "stylized typography", also inapplicable here. In what specific instances can popular usage override the artist's title, and why would that not apply to the White Album, which is frequently called that in music journalism, but would apply to adding commas to Dr. John album and song titles, which is not nearly as widespread a practice by reviewers and music journalists? 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The overarching principle is WP:UCRN, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). No such user (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link—that answers my question. Still, it seems to me that Wikipedia would default to the canonical title unless someone can demonstrate "a significant majority of... sources" deviating from it, since—for things that have an official name—that will be the best name for them in absence of an alternate demonstrated by said significant majority. As you note below, the White Album is a much more clear-cut case of this, and even there the alternate name failed to attract consensus. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only cited non-self-published source that I could find includes the comma (AllMusic). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If one source can overrule an artist's given title for a work, shouldn't the hundreds of media references to the White Album overrule the artists' title for that work? That's clearly not the case, so my question is more about where the tipping point occurs. How widespread does a title alteration have to be before Wikipedia considers it the canonical title? 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm astonished that White Album redirects to The Beatles (album), and I believe it is mistitled. Its talk page shows a long history of disagreement about the best title, but last RM was held in 2014 and ended up as "no consensus". No such user (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia makes no judgement as to what is canonical. You use that term a lot, and I advise you against it, as you risk having closers discard such posts as ones that show no understanding of the matter of issue, and there would be a justification for this IMO. Canonical sources are primary sources. You seem to think that they should be preferred, while our practice is to use them only as a last resort. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose comma required. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sources generally seem to include the comma. Not that there are many sources (I'd question whether this is actually notable) but those that do exist use a comma. — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.