![]() | 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 |
Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑ Yodin T 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:DENY. 97.117.52.253, 97.117.19.67, and On the ceiling are all the same person (
User:Who R U?)
|
---|
There's a part here in the area that tells how to capitalize band names that start with "The" (at shortcut WP:BANDNAME) making the false claim that the definite article "the" in band names like " The Beatles" is "before [the] band name" rather than what's actually the case, that the "The" is the first part of that band name. So I propose that we correct this error simply by replacing "The definite article before a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercased in running prose" with "The definite article included as the first word of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercased in running prose." All those in favor of accuracy over errors say "Aye!" 97.117.52.253 ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
|
This requested move has been relisted a few days ago, without attracting new participants thus far. Please comment there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Disambiguation" section in this page is outdated, as in recent months multiple discussions have occurred that affect it. Because of this, I am proposing a new rewording of the whole subsection of NCM. --Relisting. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) (Originally posted on © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC))
For years I have said many times that (for short) WP:SONGDAB is in general a problem. Sometimes is ambiguous ("Only when necessary", previously it said "When necessary", but in both cases hardly explaining when), sometimes is putative (multiple times many editors were against songs and albums taking WP:PTOPIC places solely for being songs and albums, especially using the argument that WP:SONGDAB did not especified this), and it does not go in further details with what it tries to say ("Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released more than one album (or song) with the same name", yet we have multiple songs disambiguated with years of artists with "one album (or song) with the same name", but hardly is known why or when it is used). These days I said to myself, "no one is going to change the wording, well propose to change it".
Today I am proposing a new rewording to this section. It goes in further detail to when we need to disambiguate, but not only when, but how to do it. It (finally) divides artists from albums from songs, and includes all the possible and valid variants that are used to disambiguate and are already used by non-action consensus (like we use "album" for 7 types of albums, "song" for singles and songs, and alike). I am updating certain situations, like what to do with duets or trios, what to do with non-lyrical songs, what to do when to unrelated bands of the same name release an unreleated album of the same name, the correct order of disambiguation, and etc.
The proposal can be found at User:Tbhotch/dabsong2016. Anyone can edit it if they need to correct something (at the end it is supposed to replace the current wording). Also I gently ask to not oppose the whole proposal or remove lines from it, but to contest the proposal(s) you may dislike. We can discuss them and reach a consensus with it. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I support the concept for sure - make clear that we start with regular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rules (i.e., define "when necessary"), as well as the subtopic guidance. But - the proposal is way too long and detailed as currently written. Each paragraph should be no more than 2-3 short sentences. Good start though. Dohn joe ( talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Flow My Tears#Requested move 20 September 2016 about the capitalisation of songs known by their first lines. I always knew that it was customary to use sentence case for these (with occasional lapses), but couldn't find the guideline. I finally tracked it down at MOS:CT. One participant in that discussion suggested to make that guideline more visible, so I added a mention to it overleaf:
User:Francis Schonken then qualified that sentence:
with the edit summary "Not sure whether this is a strict rule; otherwise: discuss on talk before introducing in the guideline).
FS's addition ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 11:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
===Variants of non-generic titles===
Non-generic titles can appear in variants without it being possible to demonstrate clearly which one is the most common by the common name principle. In that case, e.g. Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! or Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, follow major printed score publications for the English-language market.
Would that be of any help? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed rewrite of the paragraph in the MOS:CT guideline:
Sometimes compositions are indicated by the first words with which the lyrics start (text incipit), e.g. the Brockes Passion is also known as Mich vom Stricke meiner Sünden, its incipit. In some languages, including English, titles (title case) and incipits (sentence case) follow different capitalisation rules. E.g. "We wish you a merry Christmas" is the incipit of " We Wish You a Merry Christmas". Sentence case is applied when referring to a movement in a larger vocal work by its incipit, e.g. " I know that my Redeemer liveth" is a movement of The Messiah. Songs or other short vocal works may follow the same rule, for example when part of a larger collection, depending on publication history and current usage. An example of this would be Remember not, Lord, our offences, a musical setting of excerpted passage from a liturgical text:
Incorrect: | Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences | |
Correct: | Remember not, Lord, our offences |
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are named in sentence case: " Madamina, il catalogo è questo", Allor ch'io dissi addio, " Is she not passing fair?"; see MOS:CAPS#Composition titles, or MOS:CT for short."Do not WP:POVFORK guidelines, but work to keep them in close agreement, and to refer to the central location of the guidance. For this, it is MOS:CT, though the wording should refer to the full name of the page and section (in situ or in a hatnote just above the mention) since noobs read these guidelines (we hope) and shortcuts are primarily for (and understood by) long-term editors. That said, the
, or [[MOS:CT]] for short
can be replaced with ([[MOS:CT]])
for brevity. Agree that the "However:
Salve Regina (Liszt),
The Seven Joys of Mary (carol)" addition is not helpful since the examples do not relate to the (pre-existing and long-standing) rule. No objection to adding other clarifications if there's consensus to do so, but that discussion should be held at
WT:MOSCAPS (since it's about how these quasi-titles for works are written in prose not just in our article titles), with notice of the discussion posted here, at
WT:NCCAPS,
WT:MOSTITLE, and
WT:MOS. The applicability to article titles is secondary and incidental. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works – please comment there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
For past history see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)&oldid=367612229 etc.. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
With respect to the guidelines at WP:SONGDAB where it says:
If two or more musical compositions share the same title, and disambiguation is necessary:
- Use the name of the performer who first published the song ( "All I Ever Wanted" (Aranda song)), and not a cover artist name (
"All I Ever Wanted" (Kelly Clarkson song))
It sounds, by its read, that this method of disambiguation is recommended for all compositions having the same title even if the title is the only attribute shared. Reading on does not make it clear that different styling is expected when the titles sharing the same name are otherwise completely different musical compositions. Also: it seems that striking the Kelly Clarkson title is misguided and wrong. Misguided because the title is not only a valid redirect, but one that you would intuitively expect to exist, and wrong because it confuses disambiguation of the topic with coverage of the topic when one is a musical cover of the other. I'd like to suggest it be modified unto an improved clarity. Do others agree? Thanks>-- John Cline ( talk) 07:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On the other point, I don't think anyone's going to go along with that idea, because a) it's not the purpose of the disambiguation system to describe things in detail; and b) we've already rejected the idea of even using genres and other broad identifiers in disambiguations unless absolutely necessary. So, drilling down to a sublevel, of whether something is a cover version or not, is probably out of the question. The only purpose of the disambiguation is to get people to the right article, with a bare minimum of disambiguating verbiage. "Use the name of the performer who first published the song ... and not a cover artist name" only applies to an original and its covers, not two original songs that coincidentally have the same name (and we already have a site-wide principle to not cover two unrelated topics at the same article just because they have the same name). So, this is correct: "this method of disambiguation is recommended for all compositions having the same title even if the title is the only attribute shared", when you take the ruleset en toto.
The only quirk is we identify by composition type alone when we can. E.g., "Foo (song)" and "Foo (opera)" will usually work; when there are two songs by different people, we have to resort to "Foo (A. B. Ceesdale song)" and "Foo (XYZ Band song)". And we don't use use "Foo (A. B. Ceesdale)" because that's confusing; "Foo" is not a subset of "A. B. Ceesdale", the way "I. P. Frehley (biologist)" is a subset of the categorizer "biologist". Being more detailed in the disambig than that - such as by tagging whether things are covers, remixes, or originals, is both a WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE issue. Whether something is a cover or not is a matter for article prose. Using it as a disambiguator is also sometimes a WP:RECOGNIZABLE fault, in that it presupposes knowledge that the reader is fairly unlikely to possess, especially if it's a cover of an obscure song, or a modern cover of a song from more than a generation or two ago with which "kids today" aren't familiar. And "version" isn't a useful disambiguator, since it just leads to the question "version of what?" The word is basically a qualifier not an identifier.
PS: See also recent discussion about remix disambiguation (and over-capitalization). I think it's still ongoing, but a point I made in it is that very few remixes are independently notable (same as with covers), so the desire to come up with new rules for things like "Foo (LMNOP remix)" as WP article titles is not a good use of our time. We won't need to do it often, because in almost every case, a remix should be treated like a cover and be part of the same article. And we already have overall titling and disambiguation practices that tell us what to do, should the occasion arise.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken I undid your recent to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) because you introduced an error in punctuation, and because your edit summary did not make sense.
Menaechmi had changed:
to:
adding a comma after "albums", with an edit summary saying, "Added a serial comma to all mentions of "bands, albums and songs" to keep it consistent with serial comma usage per MOS:SERIAL.
You reverted his/her edit, but also added a comma after "covering both classical musical works". Your edit summary says, "nah, wrong application of the serial comma guidance: separated "popular" from "songs" as if there wouldn't be songs in classical music."
First of all, a comma is never used after the first item in a "both....and....." construction, so the introduction of that comma is an error. Second, whoever wrote the sentence to begin with saw this as a pair of two items, "classical musical works" and "popular bands, albums[,] and songs", so used "both" before the first item to help make that clear. If you feel that dual construction is wrong, you need to re-word the sentence entirely. Your edit summary is not sufficiently clear to be helpful. I should think it would be clear enough that the phrase "classical musical works" could include songs. It's a rather broad, inclusive phrase. The word "songs" at the end of the sentence only refers to popular songs. Just because it refers to popular songs does not mean that songs cannot exist within the range of all classical musical works. If you really want to make it clear that there can be songs within the range of classical musical works, you can add the phrase, "including songs" after "classical musical works", but I don't think it's necessary.
Part of the problem here may be that the two items, "classical musical works" and "popular bands, albums[,] and songs", are not parallel in structure. To be parallel, the second phrase should simply be "popular musical works". To avoid repeating words, it would end up as "both classical and popular musical works". If necessary, you can tack on details with "..., including....". Something to think about.
The use of the Oxford, or serial, comma is a matter of style. At MOS:SERIAL, we read:
Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are times when the serial comma can create or prevent confusion.
I would take a look at the rest of the article and see whether there are any other instances of the serial comma, and whether the use, or the lack of use, predominates, and make the article consistent. If no style predominates, or there are no other instances, I don't see any reason to revert Menaechmi's edit. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your undoing my edit, you seem to have misunderstood WP:BRD. I was being bold by undoing your edit. It is you who must discuss before reverting my edit. But, whatever. – Corinne ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Also, since I indicated I would discuss this on the talk page, it would have been the courteous (and logical) thing to do to wait to read my comment before reverting. Is it written somewhere that I must gain consensus before undoing a grammatically incorrect edit? – Corinne ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The guidance here about key signatures, etc., has IMO two problems:
I made the bold edit to bring them into clarity and alignment with the broader consensus, but the edit was reverted. [1]
For unambiguous titles, there's never any need for a parenthetical qualifier (disambiguating term). That's WP:PRECISION. If the project wants to add key signatures, opus numbers, catalogue numbers, etc., even with unambiguous titles, that's workable. But the use of those elements when they aren't disambiguating anything shouldn't then require the addition of yet another element when there's still no ambiguity.
For ambiguous titles, it seems the goal is to always use the composer's name as the parenthetical qualifier. Other elements can still be added, but shouldn't be used as disambiguating terms.
(Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, even those other elements could be used for making the titles unambiguous, but using the composer's name as a parenthetical works too.)
This would end up with some works by a composer having their name in parentheses in the title and some not, and that's okay. The parenthetical qualifiers in a title do not have to be applied all-or-nothing, and should not be per WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert) could be moved to Adagio and Rondo concertante (Schubert)? Or Adagio and Rondo Concertante ( [2])? Or Adagio e Rondo concertante? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal for changing the album naming conventions that has been mooted at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Page_move_extended_discussion. I have suggested that it be closed there and the two editors bring it here. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on whether Bright (Bright (Japanese band) album) and Bright (Bright (American band) album) are the best way to disambiguate these? older ≠ wiser 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation#Merge
Technically, merge discussions go at the talk page of the target page not the source, but whatever. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
This page should be merged into the level 3 section "Disambiguation" of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music) because to get here is a little confusing since there are not many pages linking here and the content is not much but is important enough that it should be placed in the parent page to allow better navigation. I always have a hard time coming here because it's a subpage of a specific naming convention page. The editor whose username is Z0 07:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
Given that "duo" is less-clearly musical than "band", and following on from conversation at Talk:Air_(band)#Requested move 28 July 2018, I plan make this change within WP:BANDDAB:
old
new
No rush, though. Please comment, especially if to oppose. Thanks. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Z0 raised far more than just that one RM: Tipsy (band) → Tipsy (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Sweet Exorcist (band) → Sweet Exorcist (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Shaft (British electronica band) → Shaft (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Plaid (band) → Plaid (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Presocratics (band) → Presocratics (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Pizzaman (band) → Pizzaman (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Mt Eden (band) → Mt Eden (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Nomad (band) → Nomad (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Moulin Rouge (band) → Moulin Rouge (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Monarchy (band) → Monarchy (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Mono (UK band) → Mono (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Madison Avenue (band) → Madison Avenue (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Lamb (band) → Lamb (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Lemaitre (band) → Lemaitre (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Karanda (band) → Karanda (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Justice (band) → Justice (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Honne (band) → Honne (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) I Start Counting (band) → I Start Counting (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Frost (Norwegian band) → Frost (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Freemasons (band) → Freemasons (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Empire of the Sun (band) → Empire of the Sun (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Disclosure (band) → Disclosure (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Cirrus (band) → Cirrus (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Darkside (band) → Darkside (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Cassius (band) → Cassius (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Blondes (band) → Blondes (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Blood on the Dance Floor (band) → Blood on the Dance Floor (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Beast (Canadian band) → Beast (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Big Bang (British band) → Big Bang (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Avenue D (band) → Avenue D (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) B12 (band) → B12 (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Atlantic Ocean (band) → Atlantic Ocean (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Altar (Brazilian band) → Altar (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Air (band) → Air (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 16bit (band) → 16bit (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) A wikilinked list of these can be found here.
There's also The Ghost (Faroese band) → The Ghost (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) which closed as not moved before I took that snapshot, see Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band)#Requested move 28 July 2018, and possibly there are others.
I have posted heads-ups pointing here at those listed above (but it was a manual process so I may have missed some). Andrewa ( talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm
AngusWOOF. There is a move discussion at
Talk:BTS (band)#Requested move 8 December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the
backlog (
Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings).
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've searched the archives for "ellipsis" but can't find any record of this having been discussed here in the past. Several album articles – eg ...That's the Way It Is, Let It Be... Naked, ...And Then There Were Three..., Wake Up...It's Tomorrow, Lullaby and... The Ceaseless Roar (although it's inconsistently applied in that last one) – have the ellipsis set without a space either before or after, yet Wikipedia's Manual of Style ( MOS:ELLIPSIS) states that ellipses should be set as [space][ellipsis][space]. So, just as we ignore any all-capitalised words in titles, and have a standard for lower-case treatment, no matter how the cover art might render the words ("and", "to", "the", etc), should these article titles not follow the MOS guideline with regard to ellipses? After all, the main body of the articles would otherwise contain text where the ellipses do appear with spaces – say, in quoted portions where text has been omitted.
Interested to hear other editors' views, because I've been wondering about this issue for years. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
in which case the punctuation is retained in its original form... but that's how it is. -- Izno ( talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Many pieces are named using the abbreviation "No." which is equivalent to the Unicode character № for the numero sign. I think adopting this character would produce a small improvement in readability. For example,
would become
-- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
A 2016 RfC established the current rule that if only one album/song with a particular title has its own article, then it does not need to be disambiguated by artist. This can lead to some undesirable consequences, as can be seen at Stay with You and Talk:Stay with You (Goo Goo Dolls song)#Requested move 23 April 2019. Basically, Stay with You (Lemon Jelly song) was PRODed successfully in 2017, leaving Stay with You (Goo Goo Dolls song) as the only standalone article remaining. That was the impetus for the recent WP:RM, which resulted in a mixed collection of opinions (with supporters citing this rule and opposers comparing the relative importance of the different topics) before decisively failing as the Lemon Jelly article was restored.
In my opinion, the current rule has the following issues: 1) The existence or absence of an article is not indicative of whether an article should exist on a particular topic. Our naming conventions should not depend on transient properties or circumstances which could be entirely due to chance, e.g. if an article happened to be created (or deleted) before another. 2) Even if all the articles that should exist according to notability standards do exist and all the articles that shouldn't, don't, it's still an arbitrary cutoff, and notability is not the same as primary usage. You could have six songs with the same title, where the only notable song (which perhaps just barely clears the notability guideline) makes up 20% of what everyone is searching for, and the other five songs have 16% share each. In such a case, I think it is clear that no primary topic exists and the base page should be a disambiguation rather than hold the only existing article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When a band and a group share the same name, are these terms sufficiently unambiguous on their own or does it require further qualification? The guideline isn't clear on this. See Talk:Jagged Edge (group)#Requested move 16 August 2019 for example. PC78 ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions survey start show that it would probably be wise to have an explicit category naming convention in this naming conventions guideline. Please discuss there, not here until that discussion is closed. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to clarify our stance on titles which form part of a numbered series whose meaning is not inherently apparent, and whether we should disambiguate for the purpose of clarity even when not strictly necessary. An example would be Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) (as there is no other notable "Symphony No. 104"), which is already covered by WP:MUSICSERIES, but this RfC would explore the application of this principle to other domains, such as sequentially numbered legislation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SONGDAB says to disambiguate to the first artist to perform the song. Is that the first to record, or the first to release? Scandal released "Only the Young" first—after the members of Journey who wrote it sold it to them—but Journey was the first act to record it. So, who was first for disambiguation purposes? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Izno Why do you keep reverting my edit? I only try to unlink all the examples, to avoid red links. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 02:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Since Madonna (entertainer) is currently redirected, maybe the example could be changed to Rain (entertainer). Bluesatellite ( talk) 09:34, 19 February 2021 (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 |
Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑ Yodin T 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:DENY. 97.117.52.253, 97.117.19.67, and On the ceiling are all the same person (
User:Who R U?)
|
---|
There's a part here in the area that tells how to capitalize band names that start with "The" (at shortcut WP:BANDNAME) making the false claim that the definite article "the" in band names like " The Beatles" is "before [the] band name" rather than what's actually the case, that the "The" is the first part of that band name. So I propose that we correct this error simply by replacing "The definite article before a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercased in running prose" with "The definite article included as the first word of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercased in running prose." All those in favor of accuracy over errors say "Aye!" 97.117.52.253 ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
|
This requested move has been relisted a few days ago, without attracting new participants thus far. Please comment there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Disambiguation" section in this page is outdated, as in recent months multiple discussions have occurred that affect it. Because of this, I am proposing a new rewording of the whole subsection of NCM. --Relisting. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) (Originally posted on © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC))
For years I have said many times that (for short) WP:SONGDAB is in general a problem. Sometimes is ambiguous ("Only when necessary", previously it said "When necessary", but in both cases hardly explaining when), sometimes is putative (multiple times many editors were against songs and albums taking WP:PTOPIC places solely for being songs and albums, especially using the argument that WP:SONGDAB did not especified this), and it does not go in further details with what it tries to say ("Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released more than one album (or song) with the same name", yet we have multiple songs disambiguated with years of artists with "one album (or song) with the same name", but hardly is known why or when it is used). These days I said to myself, "no one is going to change the wording, well propose to change it".
Today I am proposing a new rewording to this section. It goes in further detail to when we need to disambiguate, but not only when, but how to do it. It (finally) divides artists from albums from songs, and includes all the possible and valid variants that are used to disambiguate and are already used by non-action consensus (like we use "album" for 7 types of albums, "song" for singles and songs, and alike). I am updating certain situations, like what to do with duets or trios, what to do with non-lyrical songs, what to do when to unrelated bands of the same name release an unreleated album of the same name, the correct order of disambiguation, and etc.
The proposal can be found at User:Tbhotch/dabsong2016. Anyone can edit it if they need to correct something (at the end it is supposed to replace the current wording). Also I gently ask to not oppose the whole proposal or remove lines from it, but to contest the proposal(s) you may dislike. We can discuss them and reach a consensus with it. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I support the concept for sure - make clear that we start with regular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rules (i.e., define "when necessary"), as well as the subtopic guidance. But - the proposal is way too long and detailed as currently written. Each paragraph should be no more than 2-3 short sentences. Good start though. Dohn joe ( talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Flow My Tears#Requested move 20 September 2016 about the capitalisation of songs known by their first lines. I always knew that it was customary to use sentence case for these (with occasional lapses), but couldn't find the guideline. I finally tracked it down at MOS:CT. One participant in that discussion suggested to make that guideline more visible, so I added a mention to it overleaf:
User:Francis Schonken then qualified that sentence:
with the edit summary "Not sure whether this is a strict rule; otherwise: discuss on talk before introducing in the guideline).
FS's addition ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 11:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
===Variants of non-generic titles===
Non-generic titles can appear in variants without it being possible to demonstrate clearly which one is the most common by the common name principle. In that case, e.g. Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! or Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, follow major printed score publications for the English-language market.
Would that be of any help? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed rewrite of the paragraph in the MOS:CT guideline:
Sometimes compositions are indicated by the first words with which the lyrics start (text incipit), e.g. the Brockes Passion is also known as Mich vom Stricke meiner Sünden, its incipit. In some languages, including English, titles (title case) and incipits (sentence case) follow different capitalisation rules. E.g. "We wish you a merry Christmas" is the incipit of " We Wish You a Merry Christmas". Sentence case is applied when referring to a movement in a larger vocal work by its incipit, e.g. " I know that my Redeemer liveth" is a movement of The Messiah. Songs or other short vocal works may follow the same rule, for example when part of a larger collection, depending on publication history and current usage. An example of this would be Remember not, Lord, our offences, a musical setting of excerpted passage from a liturgical text:
Incorrect: | Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences | |
Correct: | Remember not, Lord, our offences |
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are named in sentence case: " Madamina, il catalogo è questo", Allor ch'io dissi addio, " Is she not passing fair?"; see MOS:CAPS#Composition titles, or MOS:CT for short."Do not WP:POVFORK guidelines, but work to keep them in close agreement, and to refer to the central location of the guidance. For this, it is MOS:CT, though the wording should refer to the full name of the page and section (in situ or in a hatnote just above the mention) since noobs read these guidelines (we hope) and shortcuts are primarily for (and understood by) long-term editors. That said, the
, or [[MOS:CT]] for short
can be replaced with ([[MOS:CT]])
for brevity. Agree that the "However:
Salve Regina (Liszt),
The Seven Joys of Mary (carol)" addition is not helpful since the examples do not relate to the (pre-existing and long-standing) rule. No objection to adding other clarifications if there's consensus to do so, but that discussion should be held at
WT:MOSCAPS (since it's about how these quasi-titles for works are written in prose not just in our article titles), with notice of the discussion posted here, at
WT:NCCAPS,
WT:MOSTITLE, and
WT:MOS. The applicability to article titles is secondary and incidental. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works – please comment there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
For past history see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)&oldid=367612229 etc.. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation/Archive 1 page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
With respect to the guidelines at WP:SONGDAB where it says:
If two or more musical compositions share the same title, and disambiguation is necessary:
- Use the name of the performer who first published the song ( "All I Ever Wanted" (Aranda song)), and not a cover artist name (
"All I Ever Wanted" (Kelly Clarkson song))
It sounds, by its read, that this method of disambiguation is recommended for all compositions having the same title even if the title is the only attribute shared. Reading on does not make it clear that different styling is expected when the titles sharing the same name are otherwise completely different musical compositions. Also: it seems that striking the Kelly Clarkson title is misguided and wrong. Misguided because the title is not only a valid redirect, but one that you would intuitively expect to exist, and wrong because it confuses disambiguation of the topic with coverage of the topic when one is a musical cover of the other. I'd like to suggest it be modified unto an improved clarity. Do others agree? Thanks>-- John Cline ( talk) 07:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On the other point, I don't think anyone's going to go along with that idea, because a) it's not the purpose of the disambiguation system to describe things in detail; and b) we've already rejected the idea of even using genres and other broad identifiers in disambiguations unless absolutely necessary. So, drilling down to a sublevel, of whether something is a cover version or not, is probably out of the question. The only purpose of the disambiguation is to get people to the right article, with a bare minimum of disambiguating verbiage. "Use the name of the performer who first published the song ... and not a cover artist name" only applies to an original and its covers, not two original songs that coincidentally have the same name (and we already have a site-wide principle to not cover two unrelated topics at the same article just because they have the same name). So, this is correct: "this method of disambiguation is recommended for all compositions having the same title even if the title is the only attribute shared", when you take the ruleset en toto.
The only quirk is we identify by composition type alone when we can. E.g., "Foo (song)" and "Foo (opera)" will usually work; when there are two songs by different people, we have to resort to "Foo (A. B. Ceesdale song)" and "Foo (XYZ Band song)". And we don't use use "Foo (A. B. Ceesdale)" because that's confusing; "Foo" is not a subset of "A. B. Ceesdale", the way "I. P. Frehley (biologist)" is a subset of the categorizer "biologist". Being more detailed in the disambig than that - such as by tagging whether things are covers, remixes, or originals, is both a WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE issue. Whether something is a cover or not is a matter for article prose. Using it as a disambiguator is also sometimes a WP:RECOGNIZABLE fault, in that it presupposes knowledge that the reader is fairly unlikely to possess, especially if it's a cover of an obscure song, or a modern cover of a song from more than a generation or two ago with which "kids today" aren't familiar. And "version" isn't a useful disambiguator, since it just leads to the question "version of what?" The word is basically a qualifier not an identifier.
PS: See also recent discussion about remix disambiguation (and over-capitalization). I think it's still ongoing, but a point I made in it is that very few remixes are independently notable (same as with covers), so the desire to come up with new rules for things like "Foo (LMNOP remix)" as WP article titles is not a good use of our time. We won't need to do it often, because in almost every case, a remix should be treated like a cover and be part of the same article. And we already have overall titling and disambiguation practices that tell us what to do, should the occasion arise.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken I undid your recent to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) because you introduced an error in punctuation, and because your edit summary did not make sense.
Menaechmi had changed:
to:
adding a comma after "albums", with an edit summary saying, "Added a serial comma to all mentions of "bands, albums and songs" to keep it consistent with serial comma usage per MOS:SERIAL.
You reverted his/her edit, but also added a comma after "covering both classical musical works". Your edit summary says, "nah, wrong application of the serial comma guidance: separated "popular" from "songs" as if there wouldn't be songs in classical music."
First of all, a comma is never used after the first item in a "both....and....." construction, so the introduction of that comma is an error. Second, whoever wrote the sentence to begin with saw this as a pair of two items, "classical musical works" and "popular bands, albums[,] and songs", so used "both" before the first item to help make that clear. If you feel that dual construction is wrong, you need to re-word the sentence entirely. Your edit summary is not sufficiently clear to be helpful. I should think it would be clear enough that the phrase "classical musical works" could include songs. It's a rather broad, inclusive phrase. The word "songs" at the end of the sentence only refers to popular songs. Just because it refers to popular songs does not mean that songs cannot exist within the range of all classical musical works. If you really want to make it clear that there can be songs within the range of classical musical works, you can add the phrase, "including songs" after "classical musical works", but I don't think it's necessary.
Part of the problem here may be that the two items, "classical musical works" and "popular bands, albums[,] and songs", are not parallel in structure. To be parallel, the second phrase should simply be "popular musical works". To avoid repeating words, it would end up as "both classical and popular musical works". If necessary, you can tack on details with "..., including....". Something to think about.
The use of the Oxford, or serial, comma is a matter of style. At MOS:SERIAL, we read:
Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are times when the serial comma can create or prevent confusion.
I would take a look at the rest of the article and see whether there are any other instances of the serial comma, and whether the use, or the lack of use, predominates, and make the article consistent. If no style predominates, or there are no other instances, I don't see any reason to revert Menaechmi's edit. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your undoing my edit, you seem to have misunderstood WP:BRD. I was being bold by undoing your edit. It is you who must discuss before reverting my edit. But, whatever. – Corinne ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Also, since I indicated I would discuss this on the talk page, it would have been the courteous (and logical) thing to do to wait to read my comment before reverting. Is it written somewhere that I must gain consensus before undoing a grammatically incorrect edit? – Corinne ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The guidance here about key signatures, etc., has IMO two problems:
I made the bold edit to bring them into clarity and alignment with the broader consensus, but the edit was reverted. [1]
For unambiguous titles, there's never any need for a parenthetical qualifier (disambiguating term). That's WP:PRECISION. If the project wants to add key signatures, opus numbers, catalogue numbers, etc., even with unambiguous titles, that's workable. But the use of those elements when they aren't disambiguating anything shouldn't then require the addition of yet another element when there's still no ambiguity.
For ambiguous titles, it seems the goal is to always use the composer's name as the parenthetical qualifier. Other elements can still be added, but shouldn't be used as disambiguating terms.
(Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, even those other elements could be used for making the titles unambiguous, but using the composer's name as a parenthetical works too.)
This would end up with some works by a composer having their name in parentheses in the title and some not, and that's okay. The parenthetical qualifiers in a title do not have to be applied all-or-nothing, and should not be per WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert) could be moved to Adagio and Rondo concertante (Schubert)? Or Adagio and Rondo Concertante ( [2])? Or Adagio e Rondo concertante? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal for changing the album naming conventions that has been mooted at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Page_move_extended_discussion. I have suggested that it be closed there and the two editors bring it here. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on whether Bright (Bright (Japanese band) album) and Bright (Bright (American band) album) are the best way to disambiguate these? older ≠ wiser 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation#Merge
Technically, merge discussions go at the talk page of the target page not the source, but whatever. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
This page should be merged into the level 3 section "Disambiguation" of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music) because to get here is a little confusing since there are not many pages linking here and the content is not much but is important enough that it should be placed in the parent page to allow better navigation. I always have a hard time coming here because it's a subpage of a specific naming convention page. The editor whose username is Z0 07:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation page were merged into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
Given that "duo" is less-clearly musical than "band", and following on from conversation at Talk:Air_(band)#Requested move 28 July 2018, I plan make this change within WP:BANDDAB:
old
new
No rush, though. Please comment, especially if to oppose. Thanks. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Z0 raised far more than just that one RM: Tipsy (band) → Tipsy (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Sweet Exorcist (band) → Sweet Exorcist (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Shaft (British electronica band) → Shaft (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Plaid (band) → Plaid (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Presocratics (band) → Presocratics (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Pizzaman (band) → Pizzaman (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Mt Eden (band) → Mt Eden (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Nomad (band) → Nomad (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Moulin Rouge (band) → Moulin Rouge (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Monarchy (band) → Monarchy (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Mono (UK band) → Mono (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Madison Avenue (band) → Madison Avenue (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Lamb (band) → Lamb (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Lemaitre (band) → Lemaitre (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Karanda (band) → Karanda (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Justice (band) → Justice (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Honne (band) → Honne (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) I Start Counting (band) → I Start Counting (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Frost (Norwegian band) → Frost (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Freemasons (band) → Freemasons (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Empire of the Sun (band) → Empire of the Sun (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Disclosure (band) → Disclosure (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Cirrus (band) → Cirrus (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Darkside (band) → Darkside (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Cassius (band) → Cassius (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Blondes (band) → Blondes (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Blood on the Dance Floor (band) → Blood on the Dance Floor (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Beast (Canadian band) → Beast (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Big Bang (British band) → Big Bang (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Avenue D (band) → Avenue D (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) B12 (band) → B12 (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Atlantic Ocean (band) → Atlantic Ocean (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Altar (Brazilian band) → Altar (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Air (band) → Air (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 16bit (band) → 16bit (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) A wikilinked list of these can be found here.
There's also The Ghost (Faroese band) → The Ghost (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC) which closed as not moved before I took that snapshot, see Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band)#Requested move 28 July 2018, and possibly there are others.
I have posted heads-ups pointing here at those listed above (but it was a manual process so I may have missed some). Andrewa ( talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm
AngusWOOF. There is a move discussion at
Talk:BTS (band)#Requested move 8 December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the
backlog (
Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings).
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've searched the archives for "ellipsis" but can't find any record of this having been discussed here in the past. Several album articles – eg ...That's the Way It Is, Let It Be... Naked, ...And Then There Were Three..., Wake Up...It's Tomorrow, Lullaby and... The Ceaseless Roar (although it's inconsistently applied in that last one) – have the ellipsis set without a space either before or after, yet Wikipedia's Manual of Style ( MOS:ELLIPSIS) states that ellipses should be set as [space][ellipsis][space]. So, just as we ignore any all-capitalised words in titles, and have a standard for lower-case treatment, no matter how the cover art might render the words ("and", "to", "the", etc), should these article titles not follow the MOS guideline with regard to ellipses? After all, the main body of the articles would otherwise contain text where the ellipses do appear with spaces – say, in quoted portions where text has been omitted.
Interested to hear other editors' views, because I've been wondering about this issue for years. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
in which case the punctuation is retained in its original form... but that's how it is. -- Izno ( talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Many pieces are named using the abbreviation "No." which is equivalent to the Unicode character № for the numero sign. I think adopting this character would produce a small improvement in readability. For example,
would become
-- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
A 2016 RfC established the current rule that if only one album/song with a particular title has its own article, then it does not need to be disambiguated by artist. This can lead to some undesirable consequences, as can be seen at Stay with You and Talk:Stay with You (Goo Goo Dolls song)#Requested move 23 April 2019. Basically, Stay with You (Lemon Jelly song) was PRODed successfully in 2017, leaving Stay with You (Goo Goo Dolls song) as the only standalone article remaining. That was the impetus for the recent WP:RM, which resulted in a mixed collection of opinions (with supporters citing this rule and opposers comparing the relative importance of the different topics) before decisively failing as the Lemon Jelly article was restored.
In my opinion, the current rule has the following issues: 1) The existence or absence of an article is not indicative of whether an article should exist on a particular topic. Our naming conventions should not depend on transient properties or circumstances which could be entirely due to chance, e.g. if an article happened to be created (or deleted) before another. 2) Even if all the articles that should exist according to notability standards do exist and all the articles that shouldn't, don't, it's still an arbitrary cutoff, and notability is not the same as primary usage. You could have six songs with the same title, where the only notable song (which perhaps just barely clears the notability guideline) makes up 20% of what everyone is searching for, and the other five songs have 16% share each. In such a case, I think it is clear that no primary topic exists and the base page should be a disambiguation rather than hold the only existing article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When a band and a group share the same name, are these terms sufficiently unambiguous on their own or does it require further qualification? The guideline isn't clear on this. See Talk:Jagged Edge (group)#Requested move 16 August 2019 for example. PC78 ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions survey start show that it would probably be wise to have an explicit category naming convention in this naming conventions guideline. Please discuss there, not here until that discussion is closed. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to clarify our stance on titles which form part of a numbered series whose meaning is not inherently apparent, and whether we should disambiguate for the purpose of clarity even when not strictly necessary. An example would be Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) (as there is no other notable "Symphony No. 104"), which is already covered by WP:MUSICSERIES, but this RfC would explore the application of this principle to other domains, such as sequentially numbered legislation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SONGDAB says to disambiguate to the first artist to perform the song. Is that the first to record, or the first to release? Scandal released "Only the Young" first—after the members of Journey who wrote it sold it to them—but Journey was the first act to record it. So, who was first for disambiguation purposes? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Izno Why do you keep reverting my edit? I only try to unlink all the examples, to avoid red links. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 02:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Since Madonna (entertainer) is currently redirected, maybe the example could be changed to Rain (entertainer). Bluesatellite ( talk) 09:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)