Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 3

Let me resume it to focus it in the more important aspects. The rest of it can be new guideline page (similar to

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 22:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Hm, I definitely support it, clarity is always good, nothing overly contriverisial here, my only question is what scale are we talking about, are we implementing this only to the english wiki, or should all language wikis be given this? @Tbhotch:. Iazyges (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• For the last question, this method is only for English Wikipedia, as all of the wikis are independent from each other and may have different guidelines or policies. This does not prevent editors to adapt them to their wikisites. 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also Support (thanks for doing this!), but with the reservations that Dohn joe mentioned above (it's very long!). Your suggestion to break it down into separate guideline pages seems a good idea to me Tbhotch. ‑‑Yodin^T 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – fails
  K.I.S.S. (which would be an asset here). --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support Take my support with a large grain of salt. This isn't really one of my fields of expertise. My opinion is mainly what it looks like to a person who doesn't know anything about music. It's extremely detailed, and seems like it'll be helpful to anyone who needs guidance in the area. I'm generally for standardizing everything. I'm really not into that whole argument of "let everyone do it differently". It's confusing and it looks bad. The one caveat is that it's somewhat long. Might it be possible to shorten it a bit? Tamwin (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as in previous discussions, though I'm also concerned about the size of it. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. @
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5
  ). 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support again: much better. The proposed replacement section is clearer and more concise than the current text. Less certain about the creation of the /Disambiguation subpage, but on balance I think the proposed subpage is clearly written, very helpful and easy to use if an editor wanted to know what DAB term to use, and certainly better than being spread across (and taking up lots of room at) at the various Wikiproject style guides (though links to this new subpage should be added to them, of course). Unless there are objections I would say go for it. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at

Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are named in

MOS:CT

for short."

User:Francis Schonken then qualified that sentence:

Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are usually named in

MOS:CT); However: Salve Regina (Liszt), The Seven Joys of Mary (carol)

."

1. The alleged counter-examples are unhelpful because they are a) capitalised as a devotional address, or b) not a first line.
2. It's not an introduction; it's merely a mention of a guideline elsewhere which was the result of a lengthy discussion in 2013 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 11#The curious case of Remember not, Lord, our offences.

FS's addition ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing should be discussed here before introducing into the guideline:

• All examples in other languages than English are in fact useless to illustrate the principle. E.g. Der für die Sünde der Welt gemartete und sterbende Jesus and Mich vom Stricke meiner Sünden are the German title and incipit of the same work: if either of those were used as a title for an article in English Wikipedia the capitalisation rules would be the same, and have nothing to do with whether it's a title or an incipit.
• True, the English example I added was not an incipit, should be removed too.

Here's the funny coincidence: I saw the update to this guideline a few seconds after this edit where I used this RISM page as a reference, and had indeed been doubting whether i should write "Ave regina" (sentence case, as it is in the title of the RISM page) or "Ave Regina", the usual capitalisation, as it is in handwriting on the score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's an English one that is a true incipit: "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" – so I continue to doubt whether there's really a rule in English too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And another example, even more English than the previous "Land of Hope and Glory". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And a few more "Britons, Strike Home!", "Hail to the Homeland", "God Bless Anguilla", "Here's a Health unto His Majesty", "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" – seems to me that "Is she not passing fair?" is rather the exception than the rule. For the time being, until if and when a consensus can be found for this new rule, I'll comment it out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Further, none of these composition titles are "generic" names, so it is no material for the section titled "Capitalization of generic names" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, it is very counterproductive to try get an upper hand in an ongoing naming discussion via unilateral change to guidance (talking about

Talk:Flow My Tears#Requested move 20 September 2016 here, initiated by the same one who unilaterally changed the guidance here). --Francis Schonken (talk

) 13:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Why would something from

WP:NCMUSIC? If more English-language examples are needed, the one from the original discussion, Remember not, Lord, our offences, is a prime candidate; "In darkness let me dwell

" is another.

"O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" ought to be in sentence case. As I wrote before, there are several examples that don't follow this guideline, which shouldn't surprise anyone and may well be because it was so difficult to find the section in the MoS. Then there is the situation where an incipit became a title, like "Land of Hope and Glory" & al., or, as in pop music, they always were and were released as such: "Ain't She Sweet". Related to "Hope & Glory", it's worth noting that the article on the lyrics of the hymn "Jerusalem" is spelled in sentence case: "And did those feet in ancient time".

I inserted the sentence overleaf under "Capitalization of generic names" because that's the only section dealing with capitalisation; creating a new subsection for a single sentence seemed overkill; maybe a See also reference would be better: "For the capitalisation of arias, cantatas, songs that are named after their first line, see

MOS:CT

."

I'm never trying to get the upper hand, and I didn't make any unilateral changes. The MoS guideline was established, without my input, in 2013. It is relevant to the discussion at

Talk:Flow my tears, and as has been suggested there, it would be helpful to mention it here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk

) 14:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) And one more: per the "incipit" rule, at least the variant of it introduced here, A Boy Was Born should be moved to A Boy was born or A boy was born (depending on whether "Boy"/"boy" is understood as referring to Christ). The WP:RM on the matter (Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move) decided otherwise.

Taking a step back the rule at

A Boy was Born (see Talk:A Boy Was Born#Image

).

So here's what the rule should be imho: title case per the normal rules, unless, for whatever historical reason, another capitalisation stuck. And get rid of the no-good "incipit" rule which causes more problems than it solves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• My thoughts: there's a difference between an incipit (sentence case) and a title (title case). Titles sometimes match the first few words of a piece, but this doesn't necessarily make them an incipit. Following the established consensus mentioned before, the MOS is currently in line with the prevailing conventions and major style guides regarding this issue (i.e. incipits aren't in title case). Article names are only in title case when the article name is a title (not in any other case!). If you want to change the MOS to make incipits follow title case (whether just for article names, or in text as well), an overriding consensus needs to be established. While the MOS remains as it is, it's helpful to have the distinction between incipits and titles mentioned on this page. That said, I agree it should only be restored once this discussion has played out. ‑‑Yodin^T 15:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Tx, works for me, with one caveat: how to explain the difference between a "title that coincidentally is also the incipit" and an "incipit that has been used as a title"? Unless that difference can be clearly explained in Wikipedia's guidance the rule has no practical value in article titling deliberations – in which case I'd go back to "major printed editions", or a guidance comparable to the one found at
  WP:NCB#When the title version "best known in English" cannot be determined for legit exceptions to the capitalisation rules. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• As you say, it ultimately boils down to
  WP:COMMONNAME, and local consensus can be reached on the few examples where there's a problem. My opinion is (and again, I think the consensus last time was) that this shouldn't prevent a straight-forward guideline on how clear-cut incipits are treated. It could be followed by something along the lines of "if it is unclear whether the commonly-used name is a title or incipit, local consensus should be reached." For what it's worth, I always used to be annoyed when looking at, say classical CD track listings that didn't use title case, and the lack of clarity on exactly which words should be capitalised in title case would be one of the many, many things I would reform about the English language and orthography! ‑‑Yodin^T
  17:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Would that be of any help? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Related unsolved issue

• "The barn owl has not flown away!" or "The Barn Owl Has Not Flown Away!"? (both capitalisations appear in the article On an Overgrown Path). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• The examples on
  MOS:FOREIGNTITLE cover this: the capitalisation of the Polish titles should be kept as they are, but the translations of the titles (and they are titles) into English should consistently follow English title-case. Will do this in a second. ‑‑Yodin^T
  17:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Tx. The original language is however Czech (not Polish). While you're at it, could you have a peek at A Ceremony of Carols#Movements (seems erratic, containing capitalisations like "That yonge child" as well as "In Freezing Winter Night")? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal (for the capitalisation guideline)

Proposed rewrite of the paragraph in the

Sometimes compositions are indicated by the first words with which the lyrics start (text

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just for comparison, the current sentence in question at

MOS:CT

reads:

"If a work is known by its first line of text and lacks a separate title, then the first line, rendered in

sentence case

, should be used as its title."

User:Imaginatorium reworded this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The "incipit rule" to:

"If a work is known primarily by its first line of text (incipit), then this should be used as the article title, rendered in sentence case."

FS's proposal is unnecessarily verbose, but seems to express the same idea, and I won't object to using it overleaf. However, to insert it at

MOS:CT, it probably ought to be discussed there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk

) 10:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "If a work is known primarily by its first line of text (incipit), then this should be used as the article title, rendered in sentence case." – still wrong, and, as a side-note, authors of MOS guidance would do well to leave the article titling advice to naming conventions guidance. Why it's wrong: e.g. Christ Lay in Death's Dark Prison is the title of an English version of a cantata "known primarily by its first line of text". OTH, "Christ lay in death's dark prison" may refer to the second movement of that cantata version, but that capitalisation is not suitable for a Wikipedia article on the entire cantata (if we would ever have a separate article on that particular English version of the cantata). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm perpetually perplexed by the number of red herrings thrown into this discussion. FS, I expect your Requested Move at the long suffering talk page of Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 -> Christ Lay in Death's Dark Prison, BWV 4. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, no red herrings. "If a work is known primarily by its first line of text (incipit), then this should be used as the article title, rendered in sentence case" is wrong, period. A Boy Was Born "is known primarily by its first line of text", yet we don't apply "article title, rendered in sentence case". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are named in

sentence case (etc.)" is as wrong and misleading, trying to push an OP's opinion as operational guidance in project space during an ongoing WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 14:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what "Wrong, Period" means, exactly? "I Francis Schonken decree that this is wrong?", or do you have any reasoned support for your claim? Note that I am not trying to change the import of the guideline, I am just trying to clarify it. If you think the rule should be changed, then AIUI you have to garner support for the change, and not merely issue decrees. (I see you have cited

A Boy was Born: an extremely odd choice, since the article starts by mentioning that the WP title is not quite the same as the original.) Imaginatorium (talk

) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote "...is wrong, period." I didn't write "Wrong, Period" (mind the capitalisation). I did not cite

A Boy was Born, I cited A Boy Was Born (mind the capitalisation). As to the content of your question: I have given two examples now: one hypothetical (...don't think we'll ever have a separate article on the English version of the Bach cantata), one of an actual article title, A Boy Was Born

, which is definitely not in sentence case (even if the capitalisation of the first print were used it would not result in sentence case). Both examples illustrate that "If a work is known primarily by its first line of text (incipit), then this should be used as the article title, rendered in sentence case" is wrong.

PS, if people suggest to keep a discussion in one place ("Please comment there not here"), then please don't start a new discussion on the same topic in the other place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow, here's still another example: We'll to the Woods No More. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You do not appear to be listening. You said something was "wrong". (Kindly desist from the lawyercrap. I could play, but prefer not to: you did cite

A Boy was Born, or you do not understand what "style guide" means.) What do you mean by "wrong"? Normally such words are used when it is crystal clear that there is some sort of disagreement with empirical results. This is a style issue, and almost nothing is "wrong" in any normal sense. You seem to be simply saying that in your personal opinion the style guide "incipit rule" is "wrong", but this would normally be expressed by a competent English speaker as "I disagree with the incipit rule". You keep listing all sorts of examples; but these can only show that there are examples which do not follow (at least your interpretation of) the style guide, and they cannot determine whether anything is "right" or "wrong". Imaginatorium (talk

) 15:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me, I quoted the actual Wikipedia article title, which is A Boy Was Born.

I find the current incipit rule misguiding while, as Yodin explained above, it requires that one reads between the lines that a different capitalisation of the incipit can be perceived as "a separate title" in some circumstances (while these circumatances are left unexplained in current guidance). Removing the "separate title" caveat from the guidance is wrong while it is different from what the community decided, and while it leads to erroneous article titling guidance, as illustrated by three examples by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If I expressed my opinions too strongly I apologise, and am perfectly OK with a rephrasing in the sense of IMVHO the update prosal that wants to get rid of the "separate title" caveat is a further deterioration of badly formulated guidance, in other words a rewrite proposal that would render that guidance completely unsalvageable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the original formulation, Articles for arias, cantatas, songs, that are named after their first line or incipit are named in
  WT:MOS. The applicability to article titles is secondary and incidental.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
   ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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/w/index.php?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

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

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 (
  John Cline (talk
  ) 07:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• A couple points I would like to specifically make follow.

1) The conjunction in the first sentence seems grammatically incorrect. I would think it should say: "If two or more musical compositions share the same title, disambiguation is necessary; consistent to the following standards:" And from that form of introduction, I would elaborate from one bullet the stipulations relevant to same titled songs that are cover versions, and from another bullet, the stipulations relevant to original works that share only a sameness in name.

2) In the bulleted groupings, I propose setting out the standard disambiguation for song covers as: "All I Ever Wanted" (Kelly Clarkson cover), or "All I Ever Wanted" (Kelly Clarkson version), or even "All I Ever Wanted" (Kelly Clarkson cover version) while reserving the (artist song) parenthetical form, with its variations, for original published compositions. I say this regarding the primary dab form, fully recognizing that plausible redirects will continue being appropriate from the various existing forms as well. It still makes sense to me as the right direction.

Please give some thought to these when considering the wp:songdab guidelines, and whether or not clarification is needed at all. Thank you again.--

John Cline (talk

) 14:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the grammar point, I think the underlying idea was something like "If two or more musical compositions share the same title, and disambiguation is necessary because both have articles". That version presupposed people would guess that we were talking about stand-alone articles only, not really about the titles of musical works in and of themselves. Your version can seem to imply that any musical piece with the same title as another one (or as another something else, such as the film it's the theme song of) deserves its own article, which millions really do not per

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)

Recent edits

Francis Schonken I undid your recent edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) because you introduced an error in punctuation, and because your edit summary did not make sense.

Menaechmi had changed:

• This page contains naming conventions for music-related articles, covering both classical musical works and popular bands, albums and songs.

to:

• This page contains naming conventions for music-related articles, covering both classical musical works and popular bands, albums, and songs.

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 edit 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)
• Please don't disrupt section links, for instance for section shortcuts: see http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I could very well agree that the sentence "This page contains naming conventions for music-related articles, covering both classical musical works and popular bands, albums and songs" needs work, and my addition of a serial comma might be less or more confusing depending on how you view the sentence. I might suggest a re-write along the lines of "This page contains naming conventions for music-related articles, and covers classical musical works along with popular bands, albums, and songs."

Given that the section 'Bands, albums, and songs' contains serial commas, much of the rest of the article does, and the section 'Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title' my reading of

MOS:SERIAL indicated that to maintain internal consistency, a comma was needed. Your concern of section links would have been a valid revert, but is also an easy enough fix that if we reach consensus on the comma I will wholeheartedly agree to change the redirects. menaechmi (talk

) 17:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Aligning with

WP:PRECISION

The guidance here about key signatures, etc., has IMO two problems:

1. They aren't clear about the use of those elements with titles that are otherwise unambiguous
2. The interpretation being used for unambiguous titles is contrary to the broader guideline
   WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
   ).

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)

The guideline conforms to

WP:NCM guidance is optimised to satisfy at least two, three or four of these criteria, with far-apart cases where an exception to the guidance is warranted. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding the parenthetical defeats all four of the other criteria, including

WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 17:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, the previously established consensus was to always add (Schubert) after a

WP:RMs to show for it (If I remember correctly we had over 20 RMs confirming the standing consensus on the surplus "(Schubert)" parenthetical disambiguator). --Francis Schonken (talk

) 18:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, you might want to take a look at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 2#Compositions (classical music)
• Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The previously established

WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert)

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)

Or

WP:PRECISION, as above. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adagio and Rondo Concertante is what the printed page says. I wonder if that is still a generic title (comparable to Sonata or String Trio), and if yes it should not be left alone even if the only one (for now). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...generic title..."? – I suppose no, thus italicised, but admit it is somewhat borderline and might be convinced otherwise (if someone offers a good explanation). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Renamed – I propose to take it from there, that is: conduct a

WP:RM if someone thinks another article title might be better. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 13:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for (debut album) etc. dab

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)
• Oppose the conversation belongs here, and so oppose here. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor insists that change to

Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Page_move_extended_discussion, so opposed there. In ictu oculi (talk

) 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is no proposal to change
  Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Page_move_extended_discussion. --В²C ☎
  20:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

disambiguation for eponymous albums by different bands with the same name

Thoughts on whether

Bright (Bright (American band) album) are the best way to disambiguate these? older ≠ wiser
02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, one can't use an ambiguous term ("Bright") for disambiguation:

• Bright (Bright (Japanese band) album) → Bright (Japanese album)
• Bright (Bright (American band) album) → Bright (American album)

Why would the disambiguation need to be any more complex than that? The current article titles (with the double parentheses) seem too far from

WP:CRITERIA, which are policy and thus supersede particular guidelines such as WP:NCM. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 09:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Without prejudice about notability of either of these pages: currently neither page shows the least bit of effort to demonstrate they would pass either

PROD}}ded. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• @
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5
  ). 23:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposed
FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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)

Merge

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)

• Yes, this serves no purpose as some hidden micro-page no one even knows about. However, merge discussions are supposed to happen at the talk page of the target page, not the source page. Not a big deal in this case, and I notified
  WT:NCM of this proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  23:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I was surprised to find this even here. --Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"band" preferred to "duo"

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

WP:BANDDAB
:

old

• Use either "(band)" or "(duo)" when the musical ensemble is a duet, for example Capital Cities (band) or Lu (duo).

new

• Use "(band)" when the musical ensemble is a
  duo, for example Capital Cities (band)
  .

No rush, though. Please comment, especially if to oppose. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If people want us to go this direction – and there will likely be resistance, given that I've seen multiple mass-moves to "(duo)" – this wording should say "duo", since in typical uses "duet" means "a song for/with two vocal performers", not the performers themselves. Well, that should be fixed whether this anti-duo proposal passes or not, since the old language has this obscure-ish usage of "duet" as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Proposal updated accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Duo is typically used for a musical group of two individuals and it is the go-to term if band isn't appropriate for a page (e.g. Bicep (duo), FEMM (duo), Blonde (duo), Paradis (duo), The Wilsons (country duo)). The editor whose username is Z0 06:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as constituted, but support some other form of wording change. I definitely agree that the criterion needs rewording, but the proposed text isn't quite right. There's definitely no rule requiring that we preference "duo" over "band" as the disambiguator for a musical group with only two members — the definition of a band does not exclude duos, musical groups can expand or contract in size so that a band that used to be a duo becomes a trio or quartet and vice versa, and there's no rule requiring a band's article title to clarify how many members the band has — and the mass pile of move requests that was noted below was highly misguided and mostly failed. That said, there may occasionally be some cases where "duo" is a useful option — it's not overly common, but there have been instances where two different bands from the same country have used the same name at different times, thus forcing us to disambiguate them as "nationality genre band" or "decade nationality band", or some other ungainly and overly prolix title, if we completely forbid "duo" as an option. So I agree that "band" should be preferred in most cases for consistency, but I don't agree with completely ruling out "duo" as a backup option to be considered when necessary and appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)




Other RMs

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)

Move discussion notice -

Talk:BTS (band)#Requested move 8 December_2018
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)

Treatment for ellipses in titles for album and song articles

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

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)

I would recommend discussing this topic at

WT:MOS, because I don't know if we follow the spacing rule anywhere. --Izno (talk

) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Izno, thank you for the suggestion. I might leave it a while before raising at WT:MOS, because I would like to hear from editors who work on articles in this field. I'm confused why it would be that no one has followed the MOS on this point, if that is the case. I'd think the MOS is there to be adhered to, for better or worse – otherwise, there seems no reason for Wikipedia to have a manual of style ... JG66 (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, but sometimes there are rules that no-one follows whatsoever. What's the point of the rule then? Of the names above, I would suggest that at least it should be Wake Up... It's Tomorrow. The others don't bother me. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh I know what's wrong. We are not using these marks in the context of a quotation but instead in the context of a "Pause or suspension of speech". Review the guideline. "Retain the original form" does not read to me like the rules for the ellipses above apply. There is some doubt in my mind about the meaning of 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)

Actually, I can't help thinking that point under "Pause or suspension of speech" relates not to setting ellipses, but to the point above whether to retain terminal punctuation after an ellipsis. I.e., it appears (to me) to relate to the parenthetical text "Place terminal punctuation after an ellipsis only if it is textually important, as is often the case with exclamation marks and question marks but rarely with periods." Could be wrong – either way, it does seem this issue is one to take up there first! Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Using № instead of No.

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,

Piano Concerto No. 27 in B♭ major

would become

Piano Concerto № 27 in B♭ major

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We do not use the symbol per

MOS:NUMERO. --Izno (talk

) 00:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't go into much detail on this, but switching to using specialist characters like № can cause accessibility problems (for example many screen readers for visually impaired people aren't able to interpret it correctly) – see

MOS:NOSYMBOLS as well for a bit more background info. ‑‑Yodin^T

12:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Further disambiguation of albums/songs

A

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)

"band" & "group"

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)

Move discussion - Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

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)

Category naming conventions

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)

• WP:NCM#Categories and propose it for further discussion, and hopefully some kind of consensus on whatever future version of that guidance meriting consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 08:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice: Titles which are part of an ambiguous series

There is an

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)

Song disambiguation: first to record, or first to release?
• Only the Young (Journey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)

I would go with Journey in this case, where they were the band that wrote it and performed it first.

-- Calidum

01:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)