Talk:Irish traditional music

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Irish traditional music -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

• (a) "folk music" is contemporary folk music, whether played by Irish artists or others
• (b) "traditional music" is the kind of thing Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann does

This article seems to be about (b). Of course

1. there is plenty of overlap between (a) and (b)
2. people outside Ireland probably call (b) "Irish folk music" rather than "Irish traditional music" or "traditional Irish music"

Nevertheless I think it is worth considering whether per

• Irish traditional music
• traditional Irish music
• traditional music (Ireland) jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Irish traditional music sounds both grammatical (per
  No such user (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hmm, tricky. The most thorough strategy would be to divide it into
    traditional music redirects to folk music. I suspect a lot of the Category:Folk music subtree ought to be pushed up to Category:Traditional music, not restricted to Irish articles. jnestorius^(talk) 14:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Might one argue that Trad is a subcategory of folk? And if so might we solve the problem by treating them as such?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We've had the exact same situation, issues and questions regarding folk music in general. Although I don't know if Irish had the prominent transitional event/link analogous to the US Folk Revival. They are two different but related genres which have the same name, and, importantly, which casual readers consider to be one and the same, and so the word that they would search by for both of them. We can't just take a major-word-with-a-vague-common-meaning and have it go really nowhere in Wikipedia because the commonly-accepted one meaning is technically two. My approach was one big Folk Music article somewhat split into two halves. Articles about genres are inevitably defined by and partially about the genre term rather than just some fundamental realities that exist independent of the words. In my absence, someone split it which was also fine, particularly since the article had become very large. My advice leans weakly towards keeping them combined with the current or similar title. If you do split or significantly re-retitle, keep in mind that "traditional music" and "folk music" are not quite the same thing. For example, "traditional" can include orchestral and classical. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "Irish traditional music" can include classical, its a pretty well-defined genre within the Irish folk scene.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  contemporary folk and the like as played by Irish musicians, such as The Johnstons. There is of course a lot of overlap, but such overlap can be covered just as well under the title "Irish traditional music".--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below; the category can be discussed separately at

Irish traditional music → Irish folk music – consistency with the other articles Category:Folk music by country & with Category:Irish folk music and as the new title has long been one of the akas in the premise Solidest (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (

^(talk) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Clearly not uncontroversial - there was a 2017 RM which established the current name at Talk:Irish traditional music.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be clarified that on Wikipedia we have an established scheme on naming traditional and folk music articles. The articles with the name "... traditional music" refer to music that combine classical and folk music, where it is close-to-impossible separate them. This mostly fair to East Asian, Indian, some Middle Eastern and Turkish-Mongolian genres. There is no such music in Europe as there is a clear division between
  traditional folk music and classical music. Scenes of contemporary folk music should not be assumed to be the main focus of the articles with the "(region/country) folk music" title but such scenes may be mentioned in a separate paragraph within the article as part of folk revival if necessary, see American folk music. Otherwise, contemporary folk scene articles should be named in a different way, due to the prevalence of traditional folk articles with, once again, consistent naming scheme. See also similar case of renaming: Russian folk music. I think it's important to stick to this scheme, at least until someone decides to rename all the articles to "... traditional folk music", which would finally make it unnecessary to clarify the state of things :) Solidest (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. I'm all for consistency in article titles. But
  WP:COMMONNAME works... Guliolopez (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The problem is that in Russian the name "Russian folk music" is not used, in fact it is called "people's music" there, while "folk" is always means

  WP:COMMONNAME should be used. I don't know if this is the right approach regarding wiki guidelines or if we should start splitting articles into overviews and genre-specific ones (like you are trying to position this article now). But such a systematic approach where a scope of articles are built to be overviews of regional folk music concept is certainly way more convenient for both the editor and the reader. And I don't see this article as an exception to the rule (unlike, for example, Traditional Japanese music, which describes exactly the inseparable mix of art + folk music). Solidest (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  1. on wikipedia, we ignore regional naming conventions For non-anglophone countries, the appropriate article name per
     MOS:TIES
     . If some other countries' articles have the wrong name, the solution is not to make the Irish article have a wrong name for consistency.
  2. such articles are intended to be a coverage of a regional subspecies of
     WP:COMMONNAME should be used — intended by whom? who decides what is a "single specific concept" as opposed to a "subspecies" of some larger concept? What if it's a subspecies of two concepts with differing naming conventions? Should we move Soccer in the United States and Football in England to be consistent with Association football
     ?
  3. genre-specific ones (like you are trying to position this article now) You seem to want not only to rename the article but also to change its content/focus to match the new name? Maybe instead accept that the current content matches the current title and neither is broken. Instead you might make
     Irish folk music a dab page, pointing to both Irish traditional music and Music of Ireland#Folk
     , and add some info at the latter anchor about whatever you think is "missing" from the Irish traditional music article
  4. Your comment at
     multi-move nomination
     for all articles instead of doing them one at a time. It would attract more contributors and avoid rehashing the same arguments multiple times (or indeed using inconsistent arguments in different cases).

  jnestorius^(talk) 20:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mostly agree with you. Except of few things:

  1. "intended by whom? who decides what is a "single specific concept" as opposed to a "subspecies" of some larger concept?" Decided by logical sense. When you are describing general concept, you will also describe its subspecies. Any traditional folk music is still traditional folk music per listed characteristics and definitions here: folk music#characteristics. And it's a pretty solid line that's hard to go wrong with. Various countries/nations can have multiple folk styles, the older traditional ones, or newer contemporary folk ones. While traditional music is way more vague as a concept. And is in line with your football analogy. Classical and religious music can also be called traditional music because both follow established musical traditions. And the content of this article will have a problem with that logic. But in my opinion, labeling the article as folk only makes it more obvious that the content of the article would be consistent with folk music definitions.
  2. "accept that the current content matches title". Not really. Irish traditional music has 4 paragraphs under "Revivals of traditional Irish music", which just describes contemporary folk scene. There's no such thing as "contemporary traditional music". Irish folk music = Irish traditional music + Irish contemporary folk scene. Such scheme looks way more fitting than placing it under Irish traditional music, in my opinion. But this is just a matter of reworking the article. These paragraphs should probably be in the new article called "Irish folk music" just like you said.

  But that's just my original logic, which as you correctly point out does not coincide with the wiki guidelines you listed. So I think it can be left as it is until the further article rework. Solidest (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and suggest instead refactoring
  five article title criteria are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, and Consistency; changing from the current to the proposed title improves Consistency but loses the other three. jnestorius^(talk) 20:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]