Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Nicknames = WP:COMMONNAME

I've seen several editors around here commenting on the distinction between "common names" and "nicknames" of pieces. And I understand that there can be a technical distinction made there. However - for the purposes of article titles on Wikipedia, "common name" refers to WP:COMMONNAME, and means simply what what it says - a commonly used name. In other words, for purposes of WP:COMMONNAME - and therefore article titles - there is no distinction between a "common name" and a "nickname". The policy states it clearly: "Where the term "common name" appears in this policy it means a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name." Of course, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion used in choosing a title. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions that nicknames went afoul of WP policy. Hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kleinzach has tried to raise this issue before, and was shouted down for being irrelevant. I agree with Kleinzach, and strongly believe that WP:UCN needs serious re-evaluation. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME, like the rest of WP:AT, is current policy, as distinct from speculation or wishful thinking. WP:MUSICSERIES needs to follow that policy, rather than somebody's opinion on the policy. (Of course, anyone is fully entitled to request changes to WP:COMMONNAME, but I didn't note many signs of consensus for Kleinzach's appeal in the centralized forum.) MistyMorn (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Basically Dohn joe is correct here. Nicknames are not specifically addressed in WP:COMMONNAME, indeed the concept of 'common name' itself is undefined (as I have pointed out) hence the general confusion which I have tried to address in as neutral a way as possible. Unfortunately good faith is in short supply at WP:ARTICLETITLE where there has been an unrelated drama going on. --Kleinzach 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The policy itself seems pretty clear, though, so it's probably ok that the term is not defined. The policy wording and examples make it clear that nicknames can be appropriate titles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't even understand what the appeal was. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Just in case this is not clear: WP:COMMONNAME refers to any name that is used significantly more often that others. In other words: the name (or names) that is (are) most commonly used. The policy does not care whether the name is the "formal" one, used by cognoscenti, or a nickname used by the uneducated masses. It simply calls for using the one that is used significantly more often in the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Songs and Instrumentals

There is a question at WP:Article titles that relates to this convention's instruction on disambiguation... specifically the line that says: When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".

To answer the question properly, I need to know the original intent behind this provision. Was it added to deal with the situation where two works of music with the same title (one with lyrics and one without), or was it added simply to be pedantic (ie to point out that a work of music isn't a "song" unless it contains singing)? The question relates to a request to move Tequila (song) to Tequila (instrumental). Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was added to stop editors from determining that "instrumental song" is a legitimate definition (as I pointed out at another discussion, it's as silly as a "feline dog"). "Tequila" is an instrumental piece, that at certain points has the word "Tequila" spoken only to fill a break. That is not a lyric, there is no story being told, the hook is played by the sax, etc. Whoever applies even the tiniest bit of common sense will agree that it is not a song, just like "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" or "Salt Peanuts". Why is this move request so "controversial" all of a sudden? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So it was added to be pedantic? Have you considered that voice is often considered an instrument... and thus all "songs" are instrumentals. (not really arguing that... just using it to point out that pedantry can be taken too far). Also... PEnnsylvania 6-5000 apparently does have lyrics. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the voice can be considered an instrument, and in a sense all songs could be regarded as "instrumentals" - except they're not. Popular-speak reserves "instrumentals" for those songs that use only non-vocal instruments; hence, all instrumentals are songs but not all songs are instrumentals. (Popular-speak also calls any musical composition, from any historical time period, whether or not it contains voices, a "song", e.g. some people would call Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture a "song". Go figure.)
Now, if we switch to encyclopedia-speak, we have a far more sophisticated hierarchy of terminology for musical compositions, where only a small proportion of works are considered songs. This is about encyclopedic integrity; nothing to do with pedantry. Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
PEnnsylvania 6-5000 was originally written as an instrumental, with the title being yelled out in rhythm; those lyrics you linked to were added later. Back to the issue in question: are you REALLY considering yelling out the word "Tequila" as a filler to be an actual lyric – or are you being pedantic? Furthermore, would you call Nyan Cat a song because of this? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does it matter when the lyrics were written?... if there are lyrics, there are lyrics.
FYI... on the specific issue of whether "Tequila" has lyrics or not (and thus whether it should be disambiguated with "song" or "instrumental"), there seems enough of a question that it should be put it up for community consensus through a formal "RM" discussion (I have requested one). If the community thinks "Tequila" has lyrics, then the article should stay at "(song)"... and if the community thinks it does not have lyrics then it should be moved to "(instrumental)" per this guideline. I do think the guideline is overly pedantic on this, but I don't object enough to challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course it matters. "In the Mood" was composed by Glenn Miller as an instrumental, but I personally played with a vocal group that sang it with lyrics. How about answering the Nyan Cat question? Is that a song because of its novelty "lyrics"? How about "Caveman" from Tubular Bells or "Altered State" from Tubular Bells II? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the second movements of Symphony No. 2 (Rachmaninoff) and Symphony No. 5 (Tchaikovsky) or the third of Horn Concerto No. 4 (Mozart) or even Minuet in G major (BWV Anh. 114)...not to further mention the first movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and the overture to The Barber of Seville. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Melodia – I fail to see the connection... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I second Jack of Oz's lucid appeal for encyclopedia speak. Like, as per Wikipedia is not iTunes. MistyMorn (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Sleigh Ride is a better example. Notice the first few words of the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends entirely on how the word "instrumental" is used in context. Regardless of whether Glenn Miller wrote lyrics to "In the Mood", I would refer to it as a "song", and qualify that, if needed, as being an "instrumental". I would never differentiate, and argue that "In the Mood", being a purely "instrumental" piece, is therefore not a "song". I would call a piece of popular music "an instrumental" only if it did originally have lyrics, which were omitted in a given version or performance. Or in a different context, I would say that "an instrumental" is a type of song that has no lyrics vocal accompaniment at all, as opposed to "Tequila" or "PEnnsylvania Sixty-Five Thousand / PEnnsylvania Six-Five Oh-Oh-Oh". Milkunderwood (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thinking about it, this is the problem right here. "Lyrics" is the wrong determinant. The real question is whether a song includes any vocal accompaniment. And in any case, an "instrumental" is a type of "song" that either never had any vocals at all, or more usually, omits the original vocals, depending on context. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, to clarify a coming nitpick, ad lib interjections such as "yeah!" or "take it again!" are not "vocal accompaniment". Milkunderwood (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
OK – good, we're getting somewhere. Now: if you agree that shouting "take it again" is not considered a lyric, how come shouting "Tequila" is considered a lyric? What's the difference? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That's very simple: "Tequila" is not an ad lib - it was written into the song to start with, in its incarnation as recorded by The Champs. It was always "vocal accompaniment". It's part of the song. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
So by that logic, had they recorded it with "take it again" in the original version and decided to shout it during live performances, would that turn it into lyrics? In that case, would you consider Count Basie's version of "April in Paris" a song because he shouts "one more time" as an instruction to recap the coda? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) We have something of a problem here with separate parallel discussions:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Wrong title appears to be finished for now, but could be added to unless a request is posted there redirecting further discussion to:
  2. this page and Songs and Instrumentals section; and at
  3. Talk:Tequila (song), the specific title under discussion.

I suggest that #1 be closed and redirected, but I'm not sure whether here or at #3 is the best place to continue, but I'll assume it's here.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I need to point out that I have appeared to make precisely the opposite argument at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Recognizability poll, saying

  • "titles should reflect best practices, and not be dumbed down for those who are unfamiliar with the topic. Redirects and disambiguations do all the work of guiding the unfamiliar to a wanted article. It has been argued that readers never look at article titles, and I do not believe that. Some readers may not; but for those who do, a properly formal title as established by editors familiar with the field helps to put the article into a broader context."

So I start off with the supposition that Hearfourmewesique is an editor far more "familiar with the field" than I am. However, my problem here is with the concept and understanding of the meaning of the terms instrumental and song. Hearfourmewesique takes the position that Tequila is not a "song", because there are no "sung" "lyrics" - just "shouts" of the work's title. Well, but the title is derived from those shouts, not the other way around, and they are an integral part of the composition and performance. I'm not familiar with its various covers, but I suppose it's not unlikely that a cover may have omitted those three shouts of "Tequila".

I do suggest, however, that in defining the terms "instrumental" and "song", "lyrics" should preferably be replaced with "vocal accompaniment", while clarifying that ad lib interjections do not qualify as "vocal accompaniment". Thus on this basis I would categorize "Tequila" and "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" as songs, irrespective of how either "instrumental" or "song" may be used colloquially.

The real difficulty with "Tequila", as opposed to , e.g., "PEnnsylvania 6-5000", is that a disambiguation is required to distinguish the musical work from the beverage and other uses of the name. What "Tequila (instrumental)" says to me, not being an expert in the field, is that this points not to what I think of as a "song" but rather to a purely instrumental cover of the "song" I want. Do we even have disambiguations from disambiguations?

I hope this may help clarify my position. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your "April in Paris" question, no. In a colloquial sense, which I argue against, yes, it is a "song". Milkunderwood (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And we still have an ongoing problem of continuing parallel discussion at Talk:Tequila (song). Milkunderwood (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A little comic relief for y'all. As for the dab issue, it can be called "song" on a dab page but redirect to "instrumental". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a final comment on PEnnsylvania 6-5000... we don't even have an article on that song/instrumental/musical work. What we have is an article on the phone number that the song is about, with a section that mentions the song. I don't have a problem with that... I just wanted to explain why there is no disambiguation (and thus no debate over whether it is a song or an instrumental). Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTE... I started this thread in order to find out what the intent behind the provision was... not to debate the provision or open a second thread about Tequila. I think my question has been answered (apparently the intent was to make a pedantic point). We do not need parallel discussions. We now have a formal move request on the talk page of the article to deal with the specific issues of Tequila (song) vs. Tequila (instrumental). I suggest we end this discussion, and the one at WP:AT... and continue to talk about the specific case at the move discussion. Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And where, then, do we talk about whether we need to make this distinction between songs and instrumentals at all? Powers T 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Right here, "Tequila" serves as a fine example to that and we should deal with the specific as well as with the broad. Unfortunately, no one wants to be musically educated, as most comments read something along the lines of "everyone calls them songs, so we should too". I'm slowly running out of air, as I forgot (again) that very few editors apply WP:COMMON SENSE. Why don't you rename all music articles to "songs"? Das how dem folks know it y'all! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If that's your idea of a discussion, count me out. Mocking your fellow editors is not productive. Powers T 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not mocking any editor, I'm mocking the mindset that encourages promoting false knowledge based solely on popularity. Is there anything wrong with that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
re: where, then, do we talk about whether we need to make this distinction between songs and instrumentals at all?
Ah... that is a different issue. If you wish to question and change what the current convention says, then this is the place to hold that discussion. As I said MY intent was not to challenge the convention, but simply to have it clarified. Carry on. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors jumping in and revising guidelines w/o consensus

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Articles in series:

Revision as of 16:17, 31 January 2012 (edit) (undo)
Pmanderson (talk | contribs)
(→Articles in series: per talk.)
"or by some other well-established method, such as a prevalent nickname (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which should have a redirect from the systematic name)."

Per what talk? Where was any consensus for this?

In the meantime, Melodia has correctly responded with
Latest revision as of 16:42, 31 January 2012 (edit) (undo)
Melodia (talk | contribs)
(→Articles in series: The whole point of it keeping its name is that it's not a 'nickname' per se)
 changing "nickname" to "non-generic name, such as", but still leaving the remaining added wording unchanged.

Why would anyone feel free to jump in and take it upon himself to just go in and change the wording - and the meaning - of a guideline willy-nilly when there is obviously no consensus for such a revision? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't know about anyone else here, but if I had what I thought would be a clarification or improvement to a policy or guideline page, I would go to its talkpage and create a New section titled Proposed change in wording. At least that's what I would do. It seems only reasonable. Not to mention polite. (And thank you, Melodia, for fixing the edit, correcting and maintaining the important distinction between a nickname and a true name assigned by the composer.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? MistyMorn (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That leads to revert warring - I think Melodia's revision was preferable as a temporary fix, and now discussion. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree; there is always some room to be WP:BOLD, but the general encouragement of BOLDness lessens on a guideline page like this one. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct in making that important distinction, Dohn joe. Policies and guidelines are different from articles; and we are already thick with confusing discussions on this talkpage. Any ad hoc changes to the guideline page are out of order. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just thought that WP:BRD could have provided a rationale for the change, given the lack of any response so far to JCScaliger's reasoned Eine Kleine objection.
BRD has its uses, MistyMorn, but with or without a specific response to the post pointed to, I'm afraid I still think going in and changing the text without notice of intent here was wrong. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have been so bold either. But my limited understanding is that such an edit was legitimate. Certainly, the points raised by JCScaliger will have to be addressed sooner or later. MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI
 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
Are there substantive reasons why Eine Kleine Nachtmusik should not be placed where it is? This is at least clear; those who would prefer a different clarity should say so, and say why. JCScaliger (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the new wording is a problem, but I've added one word (exceptionally) in clarification. Please say if anyone disagrees with it. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds much in practice; this example will only be appealed to in cases which are as exceptional as "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is. I would not have added the word; but it is not a problem until we start getting arguments whether a piece is "exceptional" or not. JCScaliger (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, 'exceptionally' seems really silly, since even if it's not common, the point is it occurs. The Poem of Ecstasy comes to mind right away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


  • Why the phrase "per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA"? Surely it shouldn't be necessary to have to contend that the local guideline is in keeping with the general policy? Anyway, it would have to be: "Article titles for compositions in the same, or similar forms, should always be recognizable, natural, concise, precise and consistent, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA..." Which would be tautological. Suggest to remove the phrase "per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA" from WP:MUSICSERIES. MistyMorn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I think it's important to explicitly demonstrate that this local guideline is in keeping with the general guideline. This was supported by MistyMorn and others at the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
A small disclaimer: My "support" was limited (nuanced) and I certainly never supported excluding the common names. MistyMorn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm opposing the bolded suggestion by MistyMorn above my previous contribution.
Pmanderson's edit failed to recognise the lengthy discussion about the difference between problematic nicknames and proper undisputed common names. K. 525's article title is not an exception, it follows WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NCM. I think that the parenthetical "(exceptionally)" is unnecessary. (The spelling of K. 525's name needs to be corrected, too.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
PMA's edit might have failed to recognize the discussion here, but it did recognize the much more well-established consensus behind wp:COMMONNAME. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that distinction between nicknames and common names myself; can someone come up with an example where an (undesirable) nickname is "prevalent"? If there aren't any, that's not a problem.
Those who want to change the spelling of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik should begin on that page; is this issue the capital K? That is proper and customary in titles of works in English; English speakers no more use German capitalization than in calling the same piece A Little Night Music. JCScaliger (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Test case/s for the recent amendment

Vaughan Williams symphonies? (ie A Sea Symphony — A London Symphony — A Pastoral Symphony — Sinfonia antartica) Thoughts? MistyMorn (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even look at the articles? "Sometimes refereed to as", "though the composer didn't designate it as such" and "published as". I think it's pretty clear that, despite their common numberings, those pieces are QUITE clearly named as they are now. We don't have an article on Symphonic Poem No. 3 (Liszt), we have it on Les préludes (and the numbering in Liszt's case IS often used). To demonstrate with a really silly example, we don't have Ballet No. 3 (Tchaikovsky), we have The Nutcracker. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm just trying to confirm more fully the consensus on this last change without taking anything for granted. For instance, that cases like Eine Kleine are—as you yourself pointed out—not at all exceptional. Here, there are four such examples in a 'series' of nine. That the statement In all cases, current scholarly practice should be followed doesn't stretch to providing a rationale for renaming A Sea Symphony to "Ocean Symphony" (presumably thanks to RVW's own acknowledgement of the 'nickname'). Personally I find it strange to see titles like A Pastoral Symphony without inclusion of the composer's name (unlike, for example, Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)), even though the disambiguation is quite clear. But others will doubtless disagree. As I've posted here, ...when establishing a set of guidelines, it's important to take the time to consider examples and possible issues arising. I've invited comment on a series of examples that I think are broadly similar to Eine Kleine to help explore how the recent changes to WP:MUSICSERIES function in slightly different contexts. The named Vaughan Williams symphonies may be relatively uncontroversial. Apart from one possible exception, they don't really touch on the controversy regarding cases—of which Moonlight is just one—where the common name is also a nickname. I think it's good to know where we are. Adopting guidelines just on a take it or leave it, love it or loathe it basis is wrong, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about WP:COMMONNAME?

For Vaughan Williams Symphonies, so far so good... A Sea Symphony, not "Ocean Symphony", is the common name. And A Pastoral Symphony is (arguably) fine as it stands without any mention of VW. But Beethoven's "Pastoral symphony" is by far the more common name (by a factor of 5 even on Google Scholar: about 2130 vs 375). So, a Question: Given WP:COMMONNAME (and therefore scholarship apart), why "Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)" without 'Pastoral' anywhere in the title? According to WP:UCN, The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. MistyMorn (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To accommodate the common name 'Pastoral' without affecting consistency (in the spirit of WP:MUSICSERIES), Suggest Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven), or something similar. MistyMorn (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Your google scholar stats are flawed. The Beethoven outnumbers the Vaughan Williams because more people study Beethoven than Vaughan Williams. Plus there are several other Pastoral Symphonies as well. The issue with the VW is that the composer did not number any of his symphonies until he got to #4. "A Pastoral Symphony" is not a "common name", its how VW published this work. Its the numbering which was retrofitted later. As far as I know, Beethoven's Pastoral is just a nickname and most people also know it as the "6th". Its not like Mozart's 13th serenade.DavidRF (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Well taken. Your 'apples versus pears' objection is certainly justified from a 'within-article' perspective. However, I think the point that, when taken out of context, most music lovers associate the phrase "pastoral symphony" firstly with Beethoven (and with Handel, Vaughan Williams, Rawsthorne etc afterwards, depending on the context) is relevant to the identification of the common name. Even Kleinzach acknowledges (below) that WP:COMMONNAME does not exclude nicknames, if accurate and typically used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources [including] sources used as references for the article. As, I think, is the case here. Can we honestly say that 'Pastoral' is not part of the common name for Beethoven's Sixth? MistyMorn (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't bother me one bit if the VW article got a "(Vaughan Williams)" disambiguator. Your google scholar stats didn't compare "Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony" to "Beethoven's Sixth Symphony". Its probably too difficult to get a good result for the latter because of the number of ways you can say "sixth" (sixth, 6th, no. 6, #6, etc) but I'd guess it would be much more even. I think its a question of whether use of the nickname becomes so pervasive that people never use the other title. That's not the case here. Most people also it as the 6th.DavidRF (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, Beethoven didn't number his symphonies (or his piano sonatas, or his trios, or...) either. The title page of the "Eroica" simply says "Sinfonia Grande", with the scratched-out Napoleon dedication. The numbering - like the nicknames - came later. Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
All unnamed and unnumbered pieces end up getting numbered, whether its by the publisher or the musicologist. And Beethoven knew his symphonies were numbered, unless the famous "because the Eighth is so much better." quote was somehow paraphrased in translation over the years (which is possible). VW gave his works explicit titles until #4 came along.DavidRF (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


(Replying to DavidRF, edit conflict:) Well taken again, though I'd still argue that the comparison provides pertinent information on usage of 'pastoral' (cf [1] [2] etc). A query: Why do you object to including 'Pastoral' in the title if that name is also also extremely common? Based on current Wikipedia policy, I can't see any reason for systematic exclusion of such universally recognized appellatives. To me, that sort of exclusion seems unfriendly to general users, and out of kilter with what Wikipedia is. MistyMorn (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I just don't like the title getting too busy. Add nicknames and then there's a debate over which nicknames "title-worthy", then people want opus numbers in the title too, or the key. Then the question as to how you order all of that? Many of these issues are rather subtle and require explanation as well. Then we have to run around and move a bunch of articles. Then when people notice that editors in different sections are doing it differently, then we have to move them again. Then we have to move them all when when people change their minds. Just look how long these particular article-name discussions have been going on. "Minor edits" become page-moves which become a big maintenance nightmare. Maybe pragmaticism is not a very convincing viewpoint but there are advantages to the clean and simple system we have now. Navigation templates and the very first line of the article clear things up for everyone. It just seems like much ado about a relatively trivial detail -- what part of the first line gets repeated with a larger font at the very top.DavidRF (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Imo, the 'pragmatic' points you raise are indeed relevant. And some of the intentions behind WP:MUSICSERIES are very good indeed. But at the same time it seems to me that, in the light of WP:COMMONNAME, (in Beethoven) instances such as Pastoral, Eroica, possibly Choral, certainly Kreutzer, Waldstein etc are far more than supplementary information. They're words just about everyone associates with the works. OK, in the case of 'Pastoral', there's also '6th', granted. But 'Piano Sonata No. 21', for example, already seems rather less immediate. MistyMorn (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
In all of those cases (except "choral") the nickname is in bold at the very top of the article and is prevalent in all of the nav templates. Sometimes I think this is all about how the category pages look... like they want the category pages to appear like a well-formatted list. Nav templates are a much better way to move around than category pages which are mainly for editors. I don't want to make that point into a strawman, though.DavidRF (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I also feel that the bolding helps a lot (though not currently at Hammerklavier, for example) and said so up at Moonlight corral... That was before moving on here to what seemed to me a worthwhile attempt to provide general guidance rather than sporadic shootouts. However, it also seems to me that if Wikipedia has an encyclopedia-wide titling policy in which WP:COMMONNAME plays a pivotal role, then it makes good long-term sense to try to implement that policy appropriately, rather than going off at a tangent by systematically excluding universally recognized common names like Eroica, Pastoral, Waldstein etc. MistyMorn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given some thought to this. Although the issues may be a bit clearer for the Waldstein (unlike with Beethoven's 6th, nobody I know refers to "Beethoven's 21st"), the exceptional familiarity of the Pastoral to a broad public seems to me to make it a particularly relevant test case. So, in a consensus-building spirit, I've gone ahead and made the name change to Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven). MistyMorn (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. I don't know why you would do that without consulting other editors first. Independent of whether or not it should be moved, there are quibbles about quote-types, commas, etc that people would have liked to have dicussed first. My guess is it gets reverted pretty quickly. Page moves are annoying.DavidRF (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For instance, (Beethoven) is unneeded and unwanted there, unless it needs to be distinguished from another composer's "Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'" -- and it doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean you support Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'? MistyMorn (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not imply that, but neither do I oppose it. I haven't followed up on the stats and rationales above, but whatever name is appropriate by WP:COMMONNAME should be used, with only as much subsequent qualification as needed for WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. My contention is that "Pastoral" is a key component of the common name which should not be excluded. MistyMorn (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


@JHunterJ: A related issue regarding qualification: Would you also consider Symphony No. 87 (Haydn) (titled as per WP:MUSICSERIES) to be unnecessarily qualified? MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved to Symphony No. 87 per WP:PRECISION: "over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." It is not clear that WP:MUSICSERIES contradicts that; we can consistently apply the qualifier based on the ambiguity, and in any event WP:LOCALCONSENSUS wouldn't override the encyclopedia-wide guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So we have two different concerns. To me the systematic exclusion by WP:MUSICSERIES of extremely common nicknames such as Pastoral, Jupiter, Kreutzer, New World etc is contrary to titling policy and unfriendly to the general readership of Wikipedia. My impression is that there really is only local consensus for this. MistyMorn (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any more of these? I've already responded at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Yet More Beethoven Nickname Page Move Discussions and at Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)#Retitling proposal/s to accommodate the common name 'Pastoral'. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a very reasonable suggestion. Including the nicknames in the titles would certainly greatly increase recognizability, be more similar to commonly used formulations of the titles on recordings, etc, and might possibly be acceptable to a large proportion of the editors who care about these things. One possible objection to the title Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven) is the use of single quote marks. Straight double quote marks are apparently preferred at Wikipedia for searching reasons (see WP:MOS#Quotation marks), although I gather this is not firmly established. Are there well-established examples of quote marks used in titles? (I think the issue of this being an overqualified title does not necessarily apply, when these nicknames are almost invariably included when these works are listed on recordings, in the press, etc., and could be considered as having become an almost inseparable part of the title.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
With/without quotation marks, whatever, as per MOS... I included them to anticipate concerns from others about using nicknames at all. MistyMorn (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I do think the nickname needs to be in quotes. It's just a question of which type. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Putting the nicknames in quotes seems strange. What is the common name of this piece? Is it Pastoral or is it Symphony No. 6? If it's Pastoral, then it should be moved to Pastoral (something minimal here). If it is Symphony No. 6 then it probably ought to stay where it is at Symphony No. 6. The idea of putting extra information in the title to help readers who don't recognize the common name has been promoted heavily in the last month or two and is not catching on. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose disambiguation by songwriter, not artist

"Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist releases multiple albums with the same name." Many, probably most, songs have been recorded more than once. Inviting disambiguation by artist is to invite POV as to which performance is to be considered definitive/most popular. Artists own no rights to a song, only to their recording of it. On the other hand, the composer of a song retains rights for his/her lifetime (and the estate retains them for some years beyond that), and this avoids POV.

If someone composes another song called With a little help from my friends, which becomes a huge international hit such that it eclipses the version we all know, what disambiguation would the Lennon/McCartney ditty have. The Beatles' version only reached 63 in the charts (as a double A side), to my generation the Joe Cocker version is definitive, but two other versions have reached number one in the UK. The only NPOV version would not be With a little help from my friends (Beatles song), or With a little help from my friends (Joe Cocker song), or With a little help from my friends (Wet Wet Wet song) or With a little help from my friends (Sam & Mark song): it could only be With a little help from my friends (Lennon-McCartney song). Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Wheel of Fortune (song)#Requested move -- should it use the year, the artist, or the songwriters? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If a song writer's name is not well-known in public, and artist's name is not well-known, how about a year? --George Ho (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It's good to have concise disambiguators whenever possible, and when there's no single performer closely associated with the song I think it's best to go with the year. For example, I find Yesterdays (1933 song) a lot better than the former title Yesterdays (Otto Harbach and Jerome Kern song). Apart from being more concise, it also doesn't confuse the reader as to whether the person in the parentheses is the songwriter, performer or both. Jafeluv (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If we standardize on composer, it would obviate the doubt about which is listed. Also, re transition, rarely (if ever?) would confusion arise as from the same person having written one song and notably performed another of the same name. Disambiguating by songwriter is a simpler and stabler regime, as stated in the proposal, and appealing for that reason. It also avoids dealing with a new artist's performance eclipsing an established one's in notability, and the naming dispute that would follow if based on performer. Further disambiguation, as on a dab page or in an article, can employ information like year and notable performers. I appreciate the value of concision, but on balance I go with composer. ENeville (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that many songs are simply much more associated with an artist than with a songwriter. For example, if Thriller was to be disambiguated further, a reader would much readily recognize "Thriller (Michael Jackson song)" than "Thriller (Rod Temperton song)". A casual reader is simply not aware of the composer of a song in many cases, and the name of the performer is more likely to help them figure out which of the similarly named songs they are looking for. Furthermore, many songs have more than one songwriter (the most usual case is having a separate composer and lyricist), which would make disambiguated titles unnecessarily long. "Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath song)" is a recognizable and relatively concise title, and I don't think we would want to change that to, say, "Heaven and Hell (Ronnie James Dio, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward song)". Similarly, "No Other Love (1953 song)" is preferable to both "No Other Love (Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II song)" and the slightly shorter "No Other Love (Rodgers and Hammerstein song)". Jafeluv (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of bands with shared names

The guideline suggests using nationality to disambiguate bands with shared names, but what should happen when there are two bands with the same name and of the same nationality? The ongoing requested-move discussion for Blue (group) is the specific instance that prompted my question. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

'Musical scale' vs. 'Scale (music)'

See discussion at Talk:Musical scale#Proposing "Scale (music)". Hyacinth (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion

A discussion regarding the correct implementation of the guidelines for the disambiguation of bands, albums and songs is currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnote for song titles. All contributions and informed opinions welcome.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bands, albums and songs: Capitalization

Delete the section on capitalization. Our job is to report the name of a band or song, not create it. Normal capitalization rules apply, there is nothing special about song names or band names that calls for a section on capitalization. Apteva (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I editted it to clarify that there's nothing new or special there, using links to the relevant style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It does not work that way. We can not be making up song titles and band names. Apteva (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I must admit to being confused by your comments. If, as you say, "normal capitalization rules apply", what is your objection to repeating/clarifying Wikipedia's capitalization policy in the music naming conventions? And what do you mean by "making up" titles and names?--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If a band is called "The Beatles" we call it "The Beatles". If we call it "Beatles" that is something we made up. If a band is called "Foo Like Us", and we call it "Foo like Us", that is a name we made up. We have no reason to, and are prohibited from making things up. By saying we are not going to capitalize certain words is absurd, because we have no way of predicting whether those words are capitalized or not. Apteva (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The guideline MOS:TM already makes it clear that we are not to make up styles not found in sources. Have you read it? It was linked in the section you deleted. It says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Band names are trademarks ("words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals to identify themselves and their products and services"). And the song and album names are composition titles; have you read MOS:CT? Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization is covered in WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), and it is not prudent to have the same convention repeated in multiple places, it just leads to the opportunity for content forks. The only item that I know of that is warranted in having a separate separate section on capitalization is birds species, which are capitalized differently than any other items. All editors are reminded to WP:AVOIDYOU, and direct the conversation to the group. As there are no special rules for band naming capitalization that are needed or wanted, the section should clearly be deleted. IF anyone wants a section, it should consist solely of See WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), but that is pretty pointless. Apteva (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The section in the article parrots MOS:CT, which is where WP:NCCAPS sends you to figure out the "details" of when to capitalize particular words in the title of "works" which is what this page is about. I fail to see how reiterating that information here is harmful. (Redacted) AgnosticAphid talk 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The danger is that as a content fork it is not going to be the same as WP:NCCAPS, and is too likely to diverge over time. This page is probably not watched as closely, which can lead to problems (48 for this page, 88 for NCCAPS, 616 for WP:AT). Apteva (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I find it difficult to have frank conversations with those who are precluded from addressing certain topics, and nobody else seems to care about our squabbling, plus I don't think it's reasonable to just go around removing things wholesale from pages just because they're arguably redundant, and right now the page is fine, so I think I'll bow out of this one. AgnosticAphid talk 07:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we can consider this topic closed unless some who supports Apteva's idea wants to step in. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bands, albums and songs: Capitalization RfC

Is there anything about band names that requires a section on capitalization? Apteva (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bird names are different from all other capitalization rules, but band names? This appears to be a content fork from other locations where capitalization rules appear. For example here are the rules from NCCAPS:

  • each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle.

And here are the rules here:

capitalize the first and last word and all other words except:

  • coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so)
  • prepositions shorter than five letters (in, to, over)
  • articles (an, a, the)
  • the word to when used to form an infinitive.
  • Note that short verbs (Is, Are, and Do) and pronouns (Me, It, and His) are capitalized.

There are different suggestions in other locations, as well. It seems important to avoid content forks, for obvious reasons, which means deleting this section. Apteva (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • NCCAPS says about capitalization, "for details please refer to MOS:CT." MOS:CT has the same rules as this article. So I don't see your point about avoiding content forks. AgnosticAphid talk 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Context – When nom started the previous section above proposing the deletion of the capitalization section, the section indeed had a problem, in suggesting that the guidelines for composition titles applied also to band names. So I fixed that, and linked the underlying guidelines in MOS, which are not the same for band names (MOS:TM) and song/album names (MOS:CT). These seemed like effective clarifications, avoiding any potential confusion and making clear what the source of the caps summary for titles was, and making clear that we do not make up names or stylings, but use stylings of names that are in use. In subsequently deleting the section, even though nobody supported the idea of doing so, nom was found to be in violation of a topic ban against advocating that the MOS does not apply to titles; the community had spent way too much time on nom's various RFCs and disruptive edits to that effect over the last 9 months to have much appetite to open that discussion again. The topic ban was explicitly clarified and he was warned. When he came back here in the section above and again proposed deleting the section, several of us tried to damp that down, but he removed our comments; I noted above that I'd considered the issue closed pending any other editor coming along to support the idea. So why are we having an RFC again here? To test the ban boundaries, to see if advocating deleting reference to the MOS is OK as long as the MOS is not mentioned in the process? In a desperate attempt to find an editor who will jump in and advance his losing case? Or what? Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is he or she, his or her, thank you. This is a little watched page (my talk page is better watched than this page), warranting the RfC. Apteva (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I am watching this page and I am a bit puzzled by this Rfc. What exactly is the issue? My understanding is that proper nouns/names of organisations (including musical groups) are determined by the organisations themselves, not Wikipedia. Likewise song titles and album titles are as published. Or is it more complicated than that? --Kleinzach 07:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Kleinzach, good question. Sometimes it's a little more complicated than that, which is why I thought it was best to have links to the relevant guidelines. Follow those links to MOS:TM (see the KISS example there), and to MOS:CT, and see if they answer your questions. Probably the "what exactly is the issue?" question remains hard to answer. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That does help me to understand the issue. Thank you. This begs the questions: what is and isn't a trademark? I see MOS:TM says "the Company names should normally be given in the most common form in English". That seems to contradict the idea that Wikipedia edits names. I also note MOS:CT#Trademarks. I don't think this is cut and dried.Kleinzach 00:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If content fork is really your issue, we could solve that by shortening the section to just refer to the relevant guidelines and not repeat the capitalization scheme for title words. But from your remarks above, it's not clear that that's really your issue or that this would make you any happier. You didn't even know there were guidelines, so why would you suggest removing reference to them? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't have an issue, only an opinion. BTW I am aware of the MOS, or I should I say, many parts of it. --Kleinzach 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, good. So is your opinion that it would be better to remove the duplication by just citing the relevant guidelines? Or not mention the guidelines at all? Or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deletion. I have clarified this above now. --Kleinzach 04:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Got it; I'll take your addition of "of guideline" to mean you want to leave the section having only the links, removing the repetition of what title words to make lowercase. I could live with that, though it doesn't seem like it will help our audience. Let's see what anyone else thinks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No, deletion of the whole guideline. In haste. --Kleinzach 05:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"The guideline" could mean the MOS:TM or MOS:CT. But here we're talking about a section that links those guidelines. So I remain ambiguously wondering what you want... As before we started, I'll stop now and consider the matter dead unless someone comes in with a coherent idea in support of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of capitals guideline text per content fork argument, as just more unneeded rule-bloat. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep reference, delete expansion: There's no harm in pointing the reader to MOS:CT. Albums and songs are undoubtedly compositions, and our guidelines on composition titles undoubtedly apply. There's no reason to repeat them here, as that will possibly cause problems in the future if MOS:CT changes. I suspect Apteva's real problem is with MOS:CT itself, and that should be covered there. I can't see any reason that we would handle song titles and book titles differently.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The apparent consensus was Do Not Merge. Votes - 0 Support, 3 Oppose and 0 Neutral. - Jayadevp13 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought of the request for this merger when I noticed that an editor had linked the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming in Template:Naming conventions. The standard usage of this template is to link to non-WikiProject pages in the Wikipedia namespace for naming convention guidelines. Essentially, the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming state all the information regarding albums types that are not listed on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music); in fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) currently only includes mentioning of modern-day albums in the opening sentence, and then is not mentioned ever again throughout the entire page.

...And that is why I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming be merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). The information in the WikiProject could only expand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) due to its lack of wording. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose – The Naming section of the Album Article Style Guide is specific to albums, and articles about albums. That needs to be left where it is, it's a necessary part of the Album Article Style Guide. I do think it would be fine to expand the existing Bands, Albums, and Songs section of the Naming Conventions (Music) page. That might involve duplicating some of the material from the AASG, but there's nothing wrong with that. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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.

Disambiguation of songs

It states that when two (or more) songs exists of the exact same name, the articles should be dab'd by <song title> (<name of artist> song). But it doesn't have any specific rules for articles like Bad Girl (Rihanna song). This song was initially performed by Rihanna and Chris Brown but their version wasn't released. It did however leak. The version by The Pussycat Dolls was released on a soundtrack. The leaked version by Rihanna managed to chart and the article wouldn't be notable enough if it didn't leak. But is it really her song? Since hers wasn't officially released. See also talk page for a move request with no consensus. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Raykyogrou0 interesting question.
But WP Song editors are ignoring WP:NCM anyway, we have a succession of RM issues at WP:PDAB with 2 or 3 very vocal editors wanting to have a "primary song" and make readers play guess-the-artist. So what's the point of clarifying above when editors are deliberately ignoring what WP:NCM says about this subject anyway? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation for a song by its first artist?

See Talk:High_Hopes_(Bruce_Springsteen_song)#Requested_move for the perhaps interesting details... Red Slash 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguate a soundtrack single.

There is this one single – Baby Doll which is from a soundtrack. There is already an article disambiguated with (song). But how to disambiguate this one from that? Should I use the composers name, eg: (Meet Bros Anjjan song) or singers? – Soham (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the article formerly at Baby Doll (song) was moved to Baby Doll (Girlicious song) back in October 2013. This was done by In ictu oculi (IIO), saying that the Girlicious song is "not even remotely close to main subject, print references are to Fred Astaire song, Bruce Springsteen etc." There are various songs with that title listed at Baby Doll (disambiguation). To complete the process started by IIO, I just changed Baby Doll (song) into a redirect to Baby Doll (disambiguation). I suggest using the performer's name for the disambiguation of an article about a new song, unless for some reason it is more well known as being the work of the composer than the work of the performer. Please make sure that the new song is sufficiently noteworthy for an article to be devoted to it (which properly requires significant coverage of the song as a distinct topic discussed in depth in reliable sources) – a good alternative may be to discuss the song in an article about the artist, composer, or album. Don't forget to add the song to the disambiguation article Baby Doll (disambiguation). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Thank you. I support this, ... the main reason being we have a strong bias to post 2005 or post 2010 article content. Yet in many if not most cases any common or generic title has already been used several times by artists of the 1930, 60s, 80s... WP:CRITERIA does not advocate making articles into a guessing game. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Off the Wall example

There seems to be a bit of a problem with the Off the Wall (album) example, as The Ugly Ducklings also released an album with that name. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if the Ugly Ducklings' album was notable enough to warrant its own article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it is a question of original intent. The Off the Wall (album) example was put into WP:SONGDAB before the Off the Wall (Ugly Ducklings album) redirect existed on Wikipedia and before the album was listed at Off the wall (disambiguation). (The redirect was created by me – just before I made the above remark – after someone else noted that this album existed and was mentioned in The Ugly Ducklings.) So the question is whether the "(album)" naming practice was intended to apply only to unique names, or was intended to also be used in cases where other candidate topics may exist but are not covered as extensively on Wikipedia or appear to be significantly less notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem just got worse. I found a link in a prior discussion, and updated Off the Wall with these (in addition to the previous two):
We now have approximately as many Off the Walls as Down to Earths. We clearly need an example with a more unusual name.
—BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of unusual album names out there, take your pick. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the example with H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album). I tried to use Mellow Yellow (Donovan album), but it appears that several other albums named Mellow Yellow do exist. I doubt anyone else will name an album H.M.S. Donovan (and there are other non-album topics on the HMS Donovan dab page, so it seems unlikely that we'll remove "(album)" from the title either). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:BarrelProof thank you for this, but I wonder if the titling instructions on WP:NCM just need to be scrapped entirely and all songs and albums include artist names. These titling guidelines were designed for people reading Wikipedia on PCs, and now - particularly in popular music - it will be a minority of users who access using PCs, and our titling needs to start working on Android and iPhone technology. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    Personally, I agree with you that including the artist name in the title of an article about an album or song seems generally desirable and helpful for the reader – except perhaps in rare cases when it produces a silly degree of redundancy – e.g., H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album). But I don't really see what that has to do with Android and iPhone technology. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Simply that an iPhone search produces all possible main article infobox jpgs - such as album covers, wheras a Google search gives no infobox art. Hence disambiguation by album cover occurs. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

EP or (EP)?

Given lack of guidance I have added a line here that dab EP should be "(EP)" unless it is part of title. Feel free to revert/chop/edit/discuss as needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Addition of WP:DISAMBIGUATION

Surprisingly the Dab section only listed WP:DABSONG not the main WP:DISAMBIGUATION. I have added it. That should not be controversial and cannot see any reason to be reversed. I have (2) spelled out what the guideline means and (3) added the Hurricane example. (4) I have redlinked the non existing H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) example for clarity. These changes are all open to discussion, and can be removed while discussion is ongoing. However as dab policy says (2) it is not too bold to add it into page history at this point. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed "Hurricane", as a poor example. Hurricane as a title is already in use as a redirect. Further, it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already, and no music article would disturb that. Redirects are no less titles than any other title, and regular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC decisions apply to redirects. If a better example exists, feel free to propose it here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: I did replace the link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION for general guidance. Dohn joe (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Changing 1 day after this "discussion" took place is not discussion. I have reverted again. Happy to take to ANI if you prefer. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
19 May to 12 June is 25 days, by my count. And yes, if you choose not to revert yourself, I'd be happy to trot off to ANI. Hopefully that won't be necessary! Dohn joe (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Btw - did you notice that your reversion(s) still include the link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION?? I only removed the portion of In ictu's additions that they admitted could be removed and brought here for discussion. Please revert. Dohn joe (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Songdab - again.

I think it would be prudent to explain why songdab is at NCM and to point out that is is supported by a policy and not a guideline (AT -v- DAB). Without spending much time and happy for improvements, how about adding as a "nutshell" or something along lines of :-

The importance of specific albums and songs can change by year, by country, by genre and by language. As a result the project has avoided the problem of continual discussions and pages moves that could be caused by common words and phrases being used as titles by avoiding the guideline WP:Primarytopic when 2 or more songs (or albums) have the same name. This is supported by the policy, Wikipedia:Article titles.

On second thoughts, even I should be able to write that better, but the gist is there. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not address questions of whether to use "(song)" or "(Michael Jackson song)", only whether any qualifier is needed at all -- so WP:SONGDAB does not avoid that guideline (but does correct the way the guideline is sometimes misunderstood). Which is a good thing, since the project does not get to decide to avoid broader guidelines; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:SONGDAB is here instead of under the dab project because the dab project doesn't opine on what qualifiers to use when qualifiers are needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for comments, all of which were understood, in no way should songdab be used to decide broader guidelines, but equally, the opposite shouldn't happen, either. If my sugestion wasn't clear I'd appreciate clarity.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion suggests that WP:SONGDAB avoids WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which isn't true. If a song's title has the song as its primary topic (as determined by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), the song article goes at the base name (with no qualifier). If a song's title has something other than the song as its primary topic (as determined by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), the song article gets a qualifier as determined by WP:SONGDAB. There's nothing in WP:AT that supports avoiding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Made a slight word change. Thanks for your comment. Is this better? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It still suggests avoiding the guidelines (primary topic). It shouldn't suggest that any guidelines should be avoided. When two or more songs (or albums) have the same name, if one of them is the primary topic for the title, then it goes at the base name: no addition of "(song)" or "(Artist Name song)" is needed. For example, Welcome to the Jungle, Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation), and Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle song) are correctly arranged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So why should one guideline take precedence over another? I do not understand. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
User:JHunterJ, that's a bad idea. Unlike cities and people the audience for pop songs is massively fragmented by genre. Also unlike cities and people we don't disproportionately cover cities and people built/born since circa 2010.
Also unlike cities we don't have such indistinguishable "primary topics" as Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah. (I kid you not, these are all play-guess-the-band titles on our reader-hating song corpus... no wonder everyone I ask prefers allmusic). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
JHunterJ gets it exactly right. WP:SONGDAB picks up where WP:DAB leaves off. There is no conflict, and no need for avoidance - they complement each other. WP:DAB tells us when disambiguation is needed generally, and WP:SONGDAB tells us how to do it in the realm of songs/albums - but only where it's required in the first place. Dohn joe (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Richhoncho, I'm saying no guideline takes precedence. Your proposed text has SONGDAB taking precedence over PRIMARYTOPIC, so you'll have to answer your question "So why should one guideline take precedence over another?". User:In ictu oculi, your examples don't illustration any bad-idea-ness. If there's no primary topic, then there's no primary topic, whether it's because of massive fragmentation by genre or coverage. OTOH, if there is a primary topic, then there is a primary topic, whether there is also massive fragmentation by genre or coverage. If the dab for Oh Yeah! and its variations needs to be at one of the base names (because that title has no primary topic), then it should be. If the other base names need to redirect to it (because those titles have no primary topics), then they should. If the titles have primary topics, then they should have hatnotes linking to the dab, as part of our reader-loving song corpus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
JHunter, hatnotes for songs don't love readers. Among myriad and generic byproducts of artists, readers with slow connections having to download articles to find out that they aren't what they wanted and the hatnote doesn't list what they wanted either, if there even is one, it is just so much simpler to use allmusic. Of these 6 titles Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah one of those is likely to be by an artist a general music reader will recognise and the other 5 maybe recognise another two. How do our artist-less Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah beat Allmusic's results displaying actual band names? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If there's a primary topic, hatnotes love readers. If there's no primary topic, base-name dabs love readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
JHunterJ that would work as a rule if 6 songs Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah were 6 distinctive Italian towns, Collecorvino Colledara Colledimacine Colledimezzo Collelongo Collepietro. But 6 songs Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah aren't 6 Italian towns they are (a) little different from six different romanizations of the same Telugu village, (b) 6 dependent byproducts only notable because 6 Artist Foos sang, (c) these are 6 WP:RECENT songs that have only WP:PrimaryRecentTopic because we do not cover songs prior to 2000 unless seriously notable, wheras from 2000 we cover every bit of five-minute fame. The 3 factors together make applying the golden rules which work reasonably well elsewhere in en.wp work very badly in songs - Collecorvino Colledara Colledimacine Colledimezzo Collelongo Collepietro are (a) fixed spellings, with (b) standalone notability, (c) each standing for 100s of years, none of which (a) (b) (c) applies to 6 songs Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah Ooh Yeah! Oh Yeah? Ooh Yeah and O Yeah.
Which is why allmusic is a pleasure to use, and navigating wikipedia songs articles is a nightmare. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite, as per IIO. What is so hard to understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Or, quite, as per Dohn joe. What is so hard to understand? Still, if the goal is to have SONGDAB trump PRIMARYTOPIC, this is the wrong forum. You'll probably need to raise it at the village pump. Here it would just be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is to be avoided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What should be done to the disambiguator of eponymous albums released by different musical acts?

To be clear, what are we supposed to do when there are (at least) two musical acts who share their name (for example Embrace (English band) and Embrace (American band)) who have, both, released an eponymous album?

Citing 3 different examples we have:

As more bands articles are being created every day, and some of them tend to share the name of another musical act, it is evident more non-related eponymous albums may have their own pages eventually. The question is, which it is supposed to be the "correct disambiguator" in all these circumstances? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: could you please remove piping from question so we can see the band article titles as they actually are? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You can click through their articles, so, the answer is no. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well for those who don't want to have to click open 12 articles to see where they are now, they are at:
Embrace (English band album) by Embrace (English band) vs Embrace (American album) by Embrace (American band)
Lucero (Lucero entertainer album) by Lucero (entertainer) vs Lucero (Lucero band album) by Lucero (band)
Black (1987 album) by Black (singer) vs Black (2011 album) by Black (Bangladeshi band)
Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Use existing artist dab - simple enough, in all these cases the artist is already at a clear existing article title, so just use the same dab existing clear artist article title, placed before artist name: [Embrace (American band Embrace album)], [Lucero (entertainer Lucero album], [Black (Bangladeshi band Black album)]. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use existing artist dab as per IIO. Albums are, generally, disambiguated by artist name, not by country of origin or year of issue. Why should we adopt a new procedure? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    In these three examples there is no "procedure", and many people has refused to use disambiguators inside disambiguator (as with Embrace (Embrace (English band) album) RM), so we need to adopt one for future cases. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought somebody would query my use of the word "procedure" (I nearly went back and changed it!), but that is arguing semantics. The practice, the standard, the normal can of beans means that when there two albums/songs with the same title we disambiguate by the name of the artist, if there are two albums by artists with the same name then why not disambiguate the same as the artist? Saves lots of discussion about bugger all (and semantics!) --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dates! I rather like the date format. There might be a problem if there's two bands called the same thing and they both release an eponymous album in the same year but the answer there is to just find some specific hack for that individual problem. But the date solution looks tidy and doesn't require complex qualification afterwards. It looks like the simplest possible thing that could work. So let's do that! —Tom Morris (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the date format could work great. It's easy and simple. By the way, I noticed notability issues in some of the articles. They could end up in an AFD sometime soon.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 00:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tom Morris: the problem is who remembers exact dates? compare Attack Attack! (album) and Attack! Attack! (album), without looking which is 2008 and which is 2010? If it was (1960s album) vs (2010s album) okay, but because our coverage is massively skewed to 2005-2014 content a lot of albums are only a year or two apart anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the stacked DAB method. WE have an Album named Embrace. We can't use that because there are 9 or more pages that could refer to. Embrace (album) still refers to at least 2 pages. The next step is to add the band Embrace (Embrace album) That still refers to 2 and we differentiate the bands by country in this case so Embrace (Embrace (English band) album). Simple, logical. Stack the dabs where needed. SPACKlick (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Very logical, but not pretty or IMO reader-friendly. Nested parens work fine for computer programmers and poorly for everyone else. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Compositions (classical music)

This discussion may lead to an update of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music):

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed

Kindly inviting to participate in that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's my update proposal following from the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed
What follows is proposed as a replacement of all subsections of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) after the recently added subsection on capitalization:

Common name, italics, disambiguation and serialization

Compositions that fall under no generic composition type category are rare. Their name is treated as a proper noun (and thus and it is italicized). Their article title strictly follows the common name principle:

Compositions that are one of a kind and nonetheless have a generic name, and so require neither italics nor not requiring additional disambiguation are even more exceptional:

When the name of a non-generic composition is neither unique nor the primary topic under this name, add the composer's last name as parenthical disambiguator:

Common name always applies when a composer composed only one instance of a generic type of composition:

Article titles on individual songs, lieder or arias are not italicised:

Compositions of a type A non-generic article title for an article on a composition that is unique to a composer are is only disambiguated by composer's name when such disambiguation is needed:

When the name of such composition of a type that is unique to the composer is generic it is not italicised (not treated as a proper noun), and always disambiguated When a generic composition type is unique to a composer and also has a generic article title, then that article title is not italicised and always disambiguated:

The key signature of a composition is only added to the article title when it is part of the common name of the composition. For generic names of compositions the formatting of the key signature is as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals, however avoiding special graphics (♭, ♯) in article titles.

As a disambiguator, key signatures can only be used in natural disambiguation, so they're never enclosed in parentheses, nor after a comma.

Disambiguation by catalogue number is usually avoided while these numbers have a low recognisability potential, and can only be used for these composers that have a single widely used catalogue covering all of their compositions:

  • Bach: BWV
  • Buxtehude: BuxWV
  • Handel: HWV
  • Mozart: K.: there is another reason to avoid this one as much as possible: there is a lot of variation in the numbers in subsequent editions of the catalogue.
  • Schubert: D, use only D. numbers according to the latest version of the Deutsch catalogue in article titles, and where applicable explain former numbers in the article.

An advantage of disambiguation by catalogue number is however that compositions can be uniquely identified without taking a stance on who composed them:

Catalogue numbers can be added as disambiguator after the common name:

For D. numbers it is avoided to use them as exclusive disambiguator In titles of the works of Schubert, use of the D. Number should always be followed by the composer’s name in parentheses (alternatively:) Avoid D. numbers as exclusive disambiguator, in other words, an article title containing a Deutsch number schould always end on "(Schubert)":

Opus numbers are only part of a generic name when the composition (or group of compositions) is usually indicated in that fashion:

Also opus numbers can not be used as exclusive disambiguator, they're always followed by the last name of the composer in parentheses.

Quotation marks should be avoided, except for the name of a theme in a set of variations that has no other proper name:

Other than that the article title for an article on a (set of) composition(s) should almost never contain quotation marks: an article title is either italicised as a proper noun or contains no quotation marks, with only a very few exceptions:

When a composer wrote more than one composition of a similar type, multiple articles on such compositions form a series. The most standardized format for article names of such a series is as follows:

  • [composition type] No. [number] ([last name of composer])

E.g.,

Deviations from this standardized format are only possible:

When the usual standardization is not possible for the aforementioned reasons, a common format is nonetheless preferably maintained across related series for a particular composer:

  • Try ro stay close to the standardized format
  • Keep the same text up till the point where the differentiation is made.
  • Apply similar layout and capitalization
  • Keep the same disambiguator format throughout the series (either ending on a catalogue indicator and/or the composer's name)

The common name needs to be overwhelmingly better known to divert from these principles regarding serialization of compositions, e.g.:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Second version:

Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation

Compositions that fall under no generic composition type category are rare. Their article title strictly follows the common name principle:

Compositions that are one of a kind and nonetheless have a generic name not requiring additional disambiguation are even more exceptional:

When the name of a non-generic composition is neither unique nor the primary topic under this name, add the composer's last name as parenthical disambiguator:

Common name always applies when a composer composed only one instance of a generic type of composition:

A non-generic article title for an article on a composition that is unique to a composer is only disambiguated by composer's name or composition type when such disambiguation is needed:

Unless the composition type is truly one of a kind (exactly one composer with exactly one instance of the type} or is a set of variations disambiguated by their theme, generic compositions with a generic article title are always disambiguated by catalogue number and/or the name of the composer:When a generic composition type is unique to a composer and also has a generic article title, then that article title is always disambiguated:

Avoid however to disambiguate by composer when the composer is not known with certainty, or a composer's name would be otherwise misleading:

Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title

Key signature
The key signature of a composition is only added to the article title when it is part of the common name of the composition. For generic names of compositions the formatting of the key signature is as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals, however avoiding special graphics (♭, ♯) in article titles.
As a disambiguator, key signatures can only be used in natural disambiguation, so they're never enclosed in parentheses, nor after a comma.
As key signatures are not always mentioned, can be ambiguous, and are often difficult to remember, they can't serve as an exclusive disambiguator, unless, exceptionally, as part of a non-generic common name article title, e.g. Great Mass in C minor.
Catalogue number
Disambiguation by catalogue number is usually avoided while these numbers have a low recognisability potential, and can only be used for these composers that have a single widely used catalogue covering all of their compositions:
  • Bach: BWV
  • Buxtehude: BuxWV
  • Handel: HWV
  • Mozart: K.: there is another reason to avoid this one as much as possible: there is a lot of variation in the numbers in subsequent editions of the catalogue.
  • Schubert: D, use only D. numbers according to the latest version of the Deutsch catalogue in article titles, and where applicable explain former numbers in the article.
An advantage of disambiguation by catalogue number is however that compositions can be uniquely identified without taking a stance on who composed them:
Catalogue numbers can be added as disambiguator after the common name:
Avoid D. numbers as exclusive disambiguator, in other words, an article title containing a Deutsch number schould always end on "(Schubert)":
Opus number
Opus numbers are only part of a generic name when the composition (or group of compositions) is usually indicated in that fashion:
Also opus numbers can not be used as exclusive disambiguator, they're always followed by the last name of the composer in parentheses.
Other additions
Following types of additions to a generic article title can only be added to the article title when they're part of the common name; They are not considered suffient as an exclusive disambiguator, so would usually require an additional composer/catalogue type of disambiguator:

Articles in series

Shortcut

When a composer wrote more than one composition of a similar type, multiple articles on such compositions form a series. The most standardized format for article names of such a series is as follows:

  • [composition type] No. [number] ([last name of composer])

E.g.,

For concerto series, composition type includes soloist instrumentation (e.g. "Cello Concerto"). Also for sonata series the (soloist) instrumentation is mentioned in the composition type ("Violin Sonata"). Similar for most other types of chamber music ("Partita for keyboard", "Flute Quartet"). For other numbered series the instrumentation is only mentioned when not what one would usually expect, e.g. "Symphony for Organ". Other additions when well-estabished, e.g. "Hungarian Rhapsody" for the series of compositions by Liszt.

Deviations from this standardized format are only possible:

When the usual standardization is not possible for the aforementioned reasons, a common format is nonetheless preferably maintained across related series for a particular composer:

  • Try to stay close to the standardized format and/or the common name.
  • Keep the same text up till the point where the differentiation is made.
  • Apply similar layout and capitalization
  • When a disambiguator is used throughout the series, keep to the same disambiguator format (ending on a catalogue indicator and/or the composer's name)

The common name needs to be overwhelmingly better known to divert from these principles regarding serialization of compositions, e.g.:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, went life with this one --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals

Can I suggest: Where the title of an article refers to a generic form of music, the words following the first should not be capitalized - thus Violin sonata, Piano trio. Where a particular piece is referred to, the form should be capitalized , e.g. Violin Sonata (Franck), Violin Sonata in A major (HWV 361) (but see my comment below), Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert).
I am also very leery of using only catalogue numbers in titles without the name of the composer. This pratice seems to me to militate against lay users of Wikipedia who are not as learned as some editors. I also believe the catalogue number should be without brackets, but the name of the composer should be bracketed: thus Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert), Violin Sonata in A major HWV 361 (Handel).
I also raise here an issue concerning Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. The titles are only given by number in WP, thus Piano Sonata No. 29 (Beethoven). I submit that (setting aside the 'Hammerklavier' nickname) this piece is more widely known, or would be more widely recognised, as 'Op. 106' than as 'no. 29'. Thus on analogy with Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert), it might be better retitled Piano Sonata No. 29 Op. 106 (Beethoven)... and so on with the other Sonatas.
I may later have some other comments on other of these proposals.--Smerus (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Re. sonata/Sonata: the Handel sonatas are not capitalized, and that seems to be a long-standing example in this naming conventions guideline. If you want it otherwise (there are a few dozen of these sonatas), I'd suggest you run a WP:RM (of the type requesting multiple page moves at the same time). I don't care either way. But I propose no change in the guideline in this respect unless such wider agreement is reached (or at least someone moves all these sonatas to the capitalized version, and those versions prove stable).
  • Re. disambiguating on catalogue indicator without naming the composer: see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 1#Proposal: addition of a new section - the approved version of that broadly participated in consensus gauge contains Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51. For a change of that consensus a survey at least as broad as the previous one would be needed. Or at least hundreds of pages moved without opposition. My current proposal already limits severely to only, and in exceptional cases, HWV, BWV and K. (the last one even rarer), and no others. Anyway, I'm opposed to changing practice by guideline instruction without established broad acceptance.
  • Re. added opus numbers, after the sequential number by type of work: oppose. Even for Beethoven's Op. 111. Also, Piano Sonata No. 14 Op. 27, No. 2 (Beethoven), with two different "No. XX"s, would be going nowhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the lower case "s" in the Handel sonatas is an outlier and they should all be moved to titles in line with other such works. I wonder what their creator, User:GFHandel, would opine now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Michael Bednarek . Moreover, the problem now arises from Francis Schonken's responses - what is the point of setting out proposals for standards 'for broad acceptance' if there is no consistency within them? The number of articles that do not conform to a standard are no argument either way as to whether that standard should be introduced. Wny HWV, BWV and K. as privileged catalogue numbers? - as I have pointed out, they mean nothing to lay readers of Wikipedia without the composers' names being present. And if you have thse, why not Hoboken numbers for J Haydn? Why, exactly is having two "No. XX"s in a title "going nowhere"? - the example cited of Piano Sonata No. 14 Op. 27, No. 2 (Beethoven), (without Beethoven in brackets), is a commonplace in concert programmes - or, for example here in IMSLP, a well respected source, which does include Beethoven in brackets. The thing is, to make obiter dicta and put forward potentially binding proposals on such a basis is a form of WP:OR, which should not carry weight in itself. We should take a look, in this context, of the forms of titling used by other sources, such as IMSLP, and we might even learn from them. Looking at IMSLP standards in particular (for instance) - and as a website which lists even more individual pieces than Wikipedia - their standard for music written in generic forms seems to be [Musical form in capital letters] [key] [No. if any] [catalogue or opus no. if any] [composer in brackets] - why not adopt this for WP as well?--Smerus (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I might just add that the proposed standards of Francis Schonken above, which as I understand them would replace (e.g.) the present Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert) with Piano Sonata in C major D. 613, runs against the consensus (of all but one editor) in the discussion on Schubert piano sonatas of only a few days ago, which was satisifed with the former of these versions.--Smerus (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I also support the earlier consensus. Using "(Schubert)" in titles is both reader-friendly and safe from confusion from catalogs for other composers. Opus33 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Francis Schonken justifies omitting the name of the composer, whilst using a catalogue number, by citing Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 (which perhaps by mistake he gives here in un-italicized form, against his own proposed standards). But as no other composers have (as far as I am aware) composed a 'Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen', this would anyway be covered by his point "Common name always applies when a composer composed only one instance of a generic type of composition" - this might better read, by the way, "Common name always applies when a composer composed only one uniquely titled instance of a generic type of composition" . There is no need to include the name of the composer in such unique works, I agree. --Smerus (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Also there is

Smerus, please, don't go overboard. Opus 33, also.
E.g., what would be unclear about "For D. numbers it is avoided to use them as exclusive disambiguator" + example in the proposal?
Re. "Piano Sonata No. 14 Op. 27, No. 2 (Beethoven)": I don't think it a good idea. Let's hear from some others.
Re. "scores:Piano Sonata No.14, Op.27 No.2 (Beethoven, Ludwig van)" — WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't follow scores:Piano Sonata No.1, D.157 (Schubert, Franz) either. My recent proposal to start using numbers for Schubert's piano sonatas was met with "no, because of the existence of the other numbering scemes". We don't do something because others do it.
Re. "Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51": that's how it got consensus, I was just quoting without altering layout (from a procedure that led to consensus some time ago, probably before italicisation was possible for article titles). The proposal above of course has an italicised Bach cantata, Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, as it is in the guideline currently.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. "I think the lower case "s" in the Handel sonatas is an outlier and they should all be moved to titles in line with other such works. I wonder what their creator, User:GFHandel, would opine now." — Move the pages, or find consensus before moving them. I don't care either way. The example is now in the guideline, the pages are currently at lower case "s", I didn't change consensus. When you prefer to see consensus changed, act accordingly, and of course the guideline will express consensus "as is". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for having misconstrued and therefore misrepresented your proposals insofar as they relate to Schubert sonatatas, etc. You write in the proposals: “For D. numbers it is avoided to use them as exclusive disambiguator”. It would perhaps be more explicit to have a rule on the lines of “In titles of the works of Schubert, use of the D. Number should always be followed by the composer’s name in brackets”.--Smerus (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Updated the proposal according to this clearer formulation, also offering this alternative: Avoid D. numbers as exclusive disambiguator, in other words, an article title containing a Deutsch number schould always end on "(Schubert)" (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is however another catalogue we might need to mention in the list of "allowed" exclusive catalogue disambiguators: BuxWV, see e.g. its use in Passacaglia in D minor, BuxWV 161. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Only a minor comment, but up to now we've always had a comma before opus and catalogue numbers. AFAICS Francis has consistently retained that in his proposal, but some of the later comments have suggested forms without that comma. That would lead to inconsistency. --Stfg (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Personally I don't like the comma in the double disambiguator combination "[article title needing additional disambiguation], [first disambiguator] ([second disambiguator]). It combines the second and the third method of WP:AT#Disambiguation. Generally I'd prefer for an article title to keep to one of those two methods, and everything before it natural disambiguation (first method per WP:AT#Disambiguation). For that reason I prefer Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert) as it is now to Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157 (Schubert) as it used to be. However, I chose existing examples (meaning, examples which have more stability than a few days) which usually have the comma. For the formulation of the guidance I didn't want to make the new format of the Schubert sonatas impossible. Another possibility would be to write guidance that takes a clearer stance on this, in which case I'd prefer to steer towards the "one method for non-natural disambiguation per article title" approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples

Looking for good examples for the guideline update proposal above I chanced upon this one: Eine Kleine Gigue in G for Keyboard, K. 574 - which is not OK according to current guidance I suppose (nor would it be OK according to the proposed updates):

  • It starts out as a proper noun (based on a nickname I suppose), Eine Kleine Gigue (which shculd be italicised Eine Kleine Gigue)
  • then a key signature is added ("in G"), which should be "in G major" while it doesn't appear to be part of the proper name (like it is for Gershwin's Concerto in F)
  • then after the key an instrument is added "... for Keyboard" (isn't that a bit late in the sequence?)
  • finally, a comma separated catalogue number disambiguator ", K. 574" - I'm fairly sure Eine Kleine Gigue is a quite unique name, so why add further disambiguation?

Let's discuss this example for what it should be ideally moved to: I suppose either Eine Kleine Gigue or Gigue in G major, K. 574. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Another fault in K. 574's current article name is the spelling of "kleine" which should not be in upper case. Mozart called it "Eine kleine Gigue für das klavier" (NMA IX/27/2 p. XVII) (with a lower case "k" in "klavier" which does not conform to normal German spelling rules today). Anyway, the best name in this case seems to me your 2nd proposal, Gigue in G major, K. 574. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bach cantatas and comma — Mozart's masses

I have no time to read all this properly, but here are two comments:

The Bach cantatas appear - after discussion in 2010 - with the title italic, comma, BWV number, no composer, for example Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, with the exception of no comma when a title ends with an exclamation mark, such as Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. I hope we don't have to add "(Bach)" to all of them. (Please remember that until the 2010 consensus, they would have been just the titles, with no help to what the German words might mean.) I like the comma separating the title from the disambiguation, even if the italic shows it a bit.

I am not so sure about the key in a name. In several cases a key is used as part of a name, such as Missa in D, - or would it be Missa in D? In others cases it seems to be more another kind of disambiguation, as in Schubert's piano sonatas. How will we handle that? In early music, you often don't have major or minor but some church mode. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. Missa in D: I can't find any "content" article under such title. I found some redirects:
There are some issues with whether or not to use italics, with capitalization, with whether or not minor or major should be added, and with whether or not to disambiguate by composer or catalogue number in these examples. Missa in D and Missa in D are both out as far as I'm concerned. However I suppose Gerda Arendt is hinting at something like Concerto in F, an actual page name, and an actual example used in the update proposal above.
Re. "In others cases it seems to be more another kind of disambiguation, as in Schubert's piano sonatas", indeed e.g. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) and Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) are exactly only disambiguated by key signature. In WP:AT logic we're speaking about the "natural disambiguation" concept here, see (first disambiguation method mentioned at WP:AT#Disambiguation). See also the answer I gave at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#A conflict in guidelines: "... for Schubert's piano sonatas the key is usually given. Which is only logical, while not all publications (both recordings and scores), as surprising as that may seem, give D. numbers, e.g. [3]. Key is about all that is left then for recognisability (... or the odd moniker)".
Key signature as part of a proper name and key signature as a natural disambiguator are both explained in the guideline proposal above. Even if you don't have time to read all of the discussion, I hope you find time to read #Common name, italics, disambiguation and serialization, the actual proposal, and let us know whether it handles the key signature issue satisfactorily in your view. Same for the BWV disambiguation issue. (yeah, maybe it is easier to type some words, than read those others have typed... well, that goes for your co-editors too...) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a closer look at current article titles for Bach's masses (BWV 232 to 236):

  1. Mass in B minor (= BWV 232)
  2. Missa, BWV 232a (earlier "Lutheran mass" version of BWV 232)
  3. Missa (Bach) discusses the four other Lutheran masses

Seems a bit akward to me. Missa is a generic name, apart from BWV 232a Bach wrote four of them, so I'd keep #2 not italicized, i.e. Missa, BWV 232a. For #3 I'd go for a descriptive name Bach's Lutheran masses or something in that sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the italics from BWV 232, thank you for pointing that out. If you have a good descriptive name for the masses of only Kyrie and Gloria, great, - a discussion on the German Wikipedia told me that Lutherische Messe (Lutheran mass) is misleading, however frequently used. - No more time right now for the other questions, later, please understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, take your time, I think we can agree not to rush this.
I suppose you meant 232a (#2), not 232 (#1).
Bach's missae breves would be correct for #3, downside being that the plural of missa brevis might appear akward to many. Masses BWV 233—236 would have the downside of using a range of BWV numbers, but I'd still prefer it over the current name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the content of #3 links to all Latin-language liturgical compositions by Bach, I'd settle for Bach's church music in Latin when we give somewhat more of a Wikipedia:Summary style structure to the article for the links to Mass in B minor, Missa, BWV 232a, Magnificat (Bach) and Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191
Right, I meant BWV 232a. Should that be Missa in B minor, BWV 232a? The article Missa (Bach) was derived from a former Missa Brevis, that's where the present name comes from. I don't think an article name should require knowledge of a Latin plural. - Mass in B minor seems to be THE common name of one unique piece (a case where the key is part of the name), therefore I always had it italic, until it was changed. Many links are still italic, I bet. - When I mentioned Missa in D I had no particular piece in mind but works without an article yet by let's say Monteverdi, see Missa in F in Selva morale e spirituale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Bach masses:
  • In my view Mass in B minor should not be italicized, for the same reasons we don't italicise Missa solemnis in C major. Whether or not Mass in B minor is its common name, whether or not it is a unique name and whether or not the key signature is part of the name are all irrelevant for italicization. When to italicize is explained in WP:ITALICTITLE, it has: "Use italics when italics would be used in running text": afaik Mass in B minor is not usually italicised in running text. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics has this example: "Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ...". What I say is that Mass in B minor is closer to Symphony No. 2 in that example, than to Resurrection Symphony. Mass in B minor is a generic name for a composition, thus it should not be italicized, as opposed to, for example, Glagolitic Mass.
A mass is also a generic composition type, whatever the uniqueness and originality of Bach's composition. A rather exceptional key signature doesn't change that. Generic composition types with a generic name are always disambiguated (unless the composition type is truly one of a kind accross all composers like the Arpeggione Sonata). General Wikipedia rules are not to add a disambiguator to article topics that are unique or that are the primary topic under that name. For classical compositions there are well established exceptions, like the series. But also, for example, Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra (Mozart). So, Mass in B minor, BWV 232 would probably be better.
I think the current wording and examples of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Unique names more than a bit confusing:
  • All examples are in italics, while, for example, Arpeggione Sonata is both unique and not italicised. Gretchen am Spinnrade would be another one.
  • "If the name of the piece is unique to that one piece, then the title should be the name of the piece alone" — yeah, sure, but we do Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) following another subsection in the same guideline.
It is all of this contradiction and ambiguity I tried to straighten out with my proposal above.
I have no idea for stile antico compositions, but I suppose the same principles can apply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I am returning from rehearsal, and we sang the Missa in F by Monteverdi I mentioned above ;) - We now have a stub article each for the Missae 233 to 236, Missa, BWV 233 etc. - We have (after discussion) Christmas Oratorio, St John Passion and St Matthew Passion, without any dab because Bach's works are the pieces most frequently meant, - it simply saves time not having to pipe them. I see Mass in B minor in the same category, - there isn't even any other, while there are several Christmas oratorios and Passions - but will not fight over it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Some issues regarding Mozart's masses:

Anyone care to help out with this?--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion contiued at Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Why no Missa brevis No. 5? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

More examples (Schubert)

see prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Other Schubert sonatas (and fantasies)

I propose these page moves:

Further, the second of these is the primary topic for Grand Duo (Schubert), so redirect and disambiguation hatnotes should reflect that.

Alternatively, after moving the four-hands sonata, redirect Grand Duo (Schubert) to Grand Duo, a new disambiguation page which might list, besides the two Schubert sonatas menioned above, Grand Duo concertant (Chopin and Franchomme) and Gran Duo Concertante.
I'd prefer this second option.

Also this page move:

Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

updated --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

D or D.?

My proposal above abbreviates Deutsch to "D." (with a period). Before this is transferred to the guideline we should try to find consensus whether this is the way we're going to keep references to the Deutsch catalogue. Please don't discuss here but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#While we have your attention... "D" or "D."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When (song) and (instrumental) both exist

When FOO (A song) and FOO (B song) both exist, and one is determined to be an instrumental do we move to FOO (song) and FOO (instrumental) removing artist names A and B. Or do we retain A and B? Noting that pop songs/instrumentals very often lose or add lyrics in covers. NB: Evidently if (composition) is used the question should not arise since both songs and instrumentals are compositions. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. We only need one unique disambiguator per title. As per the convention, "(song)" = has words. "(instrumental)" and "(composition)" are synonyms here, and = no lyrics. So yes, we could have FOO (song) and FOO (instrumental), or FOO (song) and FOO (composition). Dohn joe (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW The article I think you are both discussing says it is a song! Whether this is true I don't know, but there does seem to be a problem using instrumental if the two words are interchangeable. I also note another article was moved yesterday to instrumental even though the text reads "is an instrumental except for..." Composition is equally misleading because we need to define if it is a musical composition rather than any other kind of composition. Instrumental has similar problems. All in all, it would be nice for WP to have a guideline we can stick to, but I am not sure what it should be and I can see loads of exceptions. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Richhoncho I would agree there are significant problems. I presume User:Dohn joe you are not saying we can have FOO (song) and FOO (composition) coexist, or you would have to say we could have John Smith (person) and John Smith (footballer) coexist as titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
No, that is what I'm saying. We've decided that song=words, and the other two=not. So if that's the case, then there's no issue with X (song) and X (instrumental) coexisting. Just like there's no issue with Ian Stewart (athlete) coexisting with Ian Stewart (Australian rules footballer) and Ian Stewart (baseball). They're all "athletes", but we generally reserve (athlete) for track & field/athletics. Same here - even though "song" has a broader meaning in the real world, here in WP-land, we assign it a more specific meaning. If that's undesirable, one option would be to scrap the various choices, and pick one dab for all musical ambiguities. Make them all "song" or "composition", and I'd be on board. BTW, I would probably have more of an issue with X (composition) and X (instrumental), since they seem to have the same meaning on WP. We should at least consolidate those two. Dohn joe (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Correct me all if I am wrong but the page begins with "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.". I noticed In ictu oculi added the next phrase recently (while this is "under discussion" to be precise): "However if another (song) exists, both the (song) and the (instrumental) will still require artist name. (underdiscussion-inline Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#When (song) and (instrumental) both exist") Is there any consensus to make this substantive edit, or it was added to the page arbitrarily? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Tbhotch, I added (under discussion) to get discussion going and why you're here discussing. No there isn't consensus yet which is why it has an "underdiscussion-inline Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#When (song) and (instrumental) both exist" tag on it and why I opened this talk page section. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I'm not referring to the "under discussion" template, which is to be added if something is being discussed. I'm referring to the phrase "However if another (song) exists, both the (song) and the (instrumental) will still require artist name." As you said, you opened the discussion, and by what can be read here and Talk:Sandstorm (song) (or basically any RM you've been to), you are implicity saying is that using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)" is ambiguous as "songs" are "compositions" as well. Therefore, the reason you opened this discussion was to add something to SONGDAB, some kind of writing like "However if another (song) exists, both the (song) and the (instrumental) will still require artist name." to avoid ambiguous terms.
The question I obviously am asking is: if there is no consensus, and this still being under discussion, why your "substantive" addition is valid whereas there is no consensus where it can be supported, and the page itself requieres to have a consensus to modify the page "substantive[ly]". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did go ahead and remove the addition. It's normal practice to discuss additions before adding them, and while I appreciate In ictu adding the "under discussion" template, that is usually reserved for discussing text that is already in a guideline - not for immediately adding new text that has not been vetted by consensus. Dohn joe (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally, I think that in most cases, including the artist name is generally desirable and helpful to readers – providing clarity and precision, and preventing surprises and future title maintenance headaches. But I think that preference is mostly unaffected by the song/instrumental question. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Should treat songs as compositions - ultimately I don't really care how it's done but User:BarrelProof I don't want to see anything in the disambiguation guideline that could be used to ambiguate articles. Dohn joe - I think your comment "like there's no issue with Ian Stewart (athlete) coexisting with Ian Stewart (Australian rules footballer)" to be bordering on bad faith. If you really believe that (athlete) can mean (footballer) then you should put in a RM to move Ian Stewart (field athlete). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Richhoncho hatted the original exchange below, which is fine, but I would just like to clarify that in most versions of English, "footballer", as well as "swimmer", "boxer", and "sprinter" are all subsets of "athlete" - that word is not used exclusively for track & field/athletics. That should hopefully help explain my argument above. Dohn joe (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That is rubbish - Dohn joe knows it is rubbish, I hatted to stop the discourse, but because Dohn Joe won't let anything rest he brings it up again (he asks on my talkpage why i don't like him!). So, to repeat, Baseball and Football are sports and NOT athletic events. If he wants to unhat - be my guest! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not only WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but sometimes it is just plain wrong! A look at Athlete will clarify. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, ?? What do you find "plain wrong" about my posts? Dohn joe (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dohn joe. Actually I wasn't complaining about your post(s) as such, I was noting that other stuff exists and what happens in the baseball part of WP doesn't necessarily relate to music. Fair point? Then on investigation I noted that baseball and football are sports and not athletic events. Which, according to my non-sporting knowledge, makes players of baseball and football sportspersons and not athletes. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that as the basis for your and In ictu's misunderstanding. In fact, though, athlete=sportsperson - see Athlete, which is defined as "a person who competes in one or more sports that involve physical strength, speed and/or endurance." Apparently, "sportsperson" is British usage, while "athlete" is used both in the UK and elsewhere. I can tell you that in the US, football players are most certainly considered athletes, along with basketball players, boxers, swimmers, sprinters, etc. I recognize that "athlete" also has a narrower definition, limited to track and field.

So that was the basis of my analogy: in real life both "athlete" and "song" have both broader and narrower usages, but for WP dab purposes, they are usually limited to their narrower meanings. Thus, most "(athlete)"s are in track and field, and most "(song)"s have lyrics. Right now in WP dab-land, "(song)" and "(instrumental)" are not meant to overlap, just like "(athlete)" and "(footballer)" are not meant to overlap. Thus, just like it is okay to have Ian Stewart (athlete), (Australian Rules footballer), et al, it is also okay to have X (song) and X (instrumental) coexist without further disambiguation. Now does that analogy make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You might also like to note that the sportsperson and athlete category trees are totally separate. I am not sure what any of this has to do with songs in the first place, but you brought it up, not me. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The point was to make an analogy. If you don't understand it, no worries! Dohn joe (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, I fully understood your -ogy as being completely pointless irrelevant and an unnecessary diversion from the main discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you found it irrelevant, I can't help that. Hopefully someone else will find it helpful in the spirit in which it was offered! Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Btw, In ictu brought up the (footballer) analogy, not me - I just tried to put it in perspective. Dohn joe (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That postscript is final proof that Dohn joe either doesn't know what s/he is saying, or, more likely, the rest of us are wrong to assume good faith. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless 22:44 on 16 Sep came after 08:28 on 17 Sep, I would really like an apology for that, if you wouldn't mind! Dohn joe (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If he had said ballet dancer you would have been trawling WP for analogies on WP. My comment remains. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see your talkpage. This is getting beyond distracting for this discussion.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Vocalise (Rachmaninoff) — published as a song; no lyrics; many instrumental versions. Does that help, for comparison? —Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think that it highlights the difficulty that we find ourselves in. An even better paradox is Songs Without Words, which in WP would not be considered "(song)"s at all, because they have no lyrics. Because "song" has multiple meanings, it can be ambiguous, which is not ideal for a disambiguator! Dohn joe (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Francis Schonken yes it helps if it illustrates the fact that "song" in classical music doesn't mean "song with words". However the main issue here is whether those participating in editing WP:Naming conventions (music) are aiming to (A) increase concision + increase ambiguity or (B) increase precision + decrease ambiguity. I for one am in the (B) camp. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Anyhow don't exaggerate classical/popular music differences: "song" is used in both, and has similar significance. As an example of the vagueness of the boundaries: Summertime (song) — Summertime (aria) would be as correct, as would Summertime (Gershwin), depends on whether one looks at it from popular or classical angle. What I mean is: guidelines on popular and classical compositions should somewhere connect, they're not completely different universes.
    • Another comparison that might enlighten a bit: both Wiener Blut (waltz) and Liebeslieder, Op. 114 (Strauss) are a waltz by Johann Strauss II — why two different disambiguators? Depends on what one needs to disambiguate from:
    So I'd take a practical stance on this, steered by the logic what does one need to disambiguate from. For popular music, first choice is to disambiguate with the composition type (comparable to "waltz" in my classical example above), unless there are two compositions with the same name and a similar composition type, in which case I'd disambiguate with the composer name, like "Strauss" in the example above. Let's not overcomplicate. And less worries whether one looks at it from the "classical" or "popular" angle.

(bump)

We seem to have stalled.... I've added (and yes someone can revert, whether or not they have a better solution) " - assuming there is no composition with lyrics - " to restart this and get some kind of conclusion. The current sentence "a composition without lyrics" explicitly shows that a song is a composition with lyrics, which makes the current sentence self contradictory. In ictu oculi (talk)

Latin incipits

See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"exist"

I'm thinking that the main problem to older Users with song/album articles, i.e. the enormous overweight of WP:RECENT creation of detailed single/album articles for circa 2008-2014 content, vs typically only artist bio mentions of albums for 1940-2000 content could be solved by an underscore of exist in the following:

Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further

This would prevent the current practice of adding "(song)" to articles which are really (song since 2008) or (album since 2008). The vast number of clashes with existing pre-2008 songs and albums could be prevented by reading "exist" as "exist" not as "have a standalone article" which is how the guideline is interpreted by some, perhaps even many, editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, is there an alternative to underlining which would make the same meaning clearer? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I support clarifying if an album or song just needs to exist or if it needs to have a standalone article in order for a disambiguation to be justifiable. Would be happy if someone could address this topic 'cause I'm confused. Victão Lopes Fala! 03:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree some clarification is needed. The bar has to be higher than mere existence. I could write a song called "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", and it would exist. There are untold songs and even albums that exist but should not affect how WP deals with article titles. I would think a reasonable standard would be if a song or album is a) a standalone article or b) a redirect to a standalone article. If there are multiples of a) or b) for a given title, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SONGDAB come into play. We could replace "exist" with guidance along those lines. How does that sound? Dohn joe (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree. Would mere mentions be enough reasons for us to disambiguate album articles even if the article on the other album is yet to be created? I mean, for example, if a hypothetical artist announces an album named Music Life, and that information is added to the artist's article, should we disambiguate Music Life by Glay to Music Life (Glay album) before an article on the other album is created, based on the fact that someone might search for it? Victão Lopes Fala! 07:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

“Disambiguate by article content”?

§ Disambiguation reads: “As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, disambiguate by article content, not just by titles.” As far as I can tell, WP:D does not say this, and I’m not sure what this is trying to say. Can anyone explain? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I’ve just edited it, rewriting to instead discuss redirects and primary topics. I believe this more clearly conveys the intended meaning; if I’m wrong, then someone please explain. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ireland

Placeholder for discussions taking place elsewhere:

Please contribute to these discussions in those places, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommending to group the discussion in a single spot: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Requested moves --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"attributed to" vs. "attrib."

  • Composer uncertain
  • Use (attributed to <most likely of the named composers>) as disambiguator for a composition when all of the following applies: .......

Is this meant to be read literally? I mean, it's normal to see, e.g. Symphony in F (attrib. Haydn), rather than Symphony in F (attributed to Haydn). N'est-çe pas? Can we not use the abbreviated form in disambiguators?

I ask, because some of my page moves have been reverted on the grounds that the new dab tag was not the precise and complete wording "attributed to ...". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, currently the guidance is to use "attributed to...", literally, and move all pages to that form.
The reason AFAIK is that generally abbreviations are avoided in disambiguators.
I'll draw the attention of the classical music wikiproject to this discussion going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Abbreviations were important when writing was slow, and paper expensive. We are in a near era. Use abbreviations by all means, but have in place customised autocorrect to expand them to full before others see it. Some very long hard-to-read things should be abbreviated... Wish we had a WP:List of standard abbreviations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe that in older media, saving character space was a consideration. This certainly does not exist in the same way in online/digital media. Additionally, I think one should question the use of "attributed" in a title. In many cases, the use of an attribution has scant musicological basis and is used purely for marketing purposes (by publishers and record lablels) who stand to gain from selling copies of the work. - kosboot (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
In Wikipedia it's exclusively used for disambiguation purposes, and then only in the case there's no other less convoluted way to disambiguate. See guidance at WP:NCM#Composer uncertain.
Generally I think we should not have too many of these articles about often less known compositions, but they exist and are often more than a bit notable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

TWV

See discussion regarding use of TWV numbers in article titles which I initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Compositions by Georg Philipp Telemann. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

French capitalization rules

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like some rules might benefit from being harmonized across WikiProjects and more general standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

You are invited to comment on a request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: should the artist name be included in the titles of articles about songs and albums when other songs or albums of the same name exist, but do not have standalone articles? Thanks. sst✈ 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(tour) dab

Victory Tour (Modern Talking tour) In the Flesh (1977 Pink Floyd 'Animals' tour) Party Tour (Take That concert tour) etc. Shouldn't there be a mention of (tour) as a standard disambiguator? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

These belongs to WP:CONCERT. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidance for "List of compositions by <composer>" pages?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Relisted move request. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music)/Archive_2&oldid=1137425840"