![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
(ec) We have something of a problem here with separate parallel discussions:
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
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)
And we still have an ongoing problem of continuing parallel discussion at Talk:Tequila (song). Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:24, 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)
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)
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. -- Klein zach 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Vaughan Williams symphonies? (ie A Sea Symphony — A London Symphony — A Pastoral Symphony — Sinfonia antartica) Thoughts? MistyMorn ( talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
See discussion at Talk:Musical scale#Proposing "Scale (music)". Hyacinth ( talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
And here are the rules here:
capitalize the first and last word and all other words except:
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)
"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. Klein zach 00:39, 24 May 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)
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)
See Talk:High_Hopes_(Bruce_Springsteen_song)#Requested_move for the perhaps interesting details... Red Slash 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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
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):
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)
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)
I had a closer look at current article titles for Bach's masses (BWV 232 to 236):
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)
Some issues regarding Mozart's masses:
Anyone care to help out with this?-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
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.
Also this page move:
Thoughts? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Off-topic comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
§ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Relisted move request. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
(ec) We have something of a problem here with separate parallel discussions:
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
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)
And we still have an ongoing problem of continuing parallel discussion at Talk:Tequila (song). Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:24, 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)
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)
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. -- Klein zach 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Vaughan Williams symphonies? (ie A Sea Symphony — A London Symphony — A Pastoral Symphony — Sinfonia antartica) Thoughts? MistyMorn ( talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
See discussion at Talk:Musical scale#Proposing "Scale (music)". Hyacinth ( talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
And here are the rules here:
capitalize the first and last word and all other words except:
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)
"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. Klein zach 00:39, 24 May 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)
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)
See Talk:High_Hopes_(Bruce_Springsteen_song)#Requested_move for the perhaps interesting details... Red Slash 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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
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):
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)
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)
I had a closer look at current article titles for Bach's masses (BWV 232 to 236):
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)
Some issues regarding Mozart's masses:
Anyone care to help out with this?-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
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.
Also this page move:
Thoughts? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Off-topic comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
§ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Relisted move request. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)