Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Disambiguation page for "Inhaler" song vs artist

The wiki music entry for "Inhaler" is specific to the song "inhaler", however there is also an artist named "inhaler" who has been releasing albums since 2002.

Having said, this, the Hooverphonic song "inhaler" is totally awesome! (so is most of "inhaler"s stuff too imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.175 (talk) 06:11, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Unwell genre add

This Matchbox Twenty song is more than just a pop rock, it also more of an alternative rock song and this band was known as both an alternative rock and pop rock group. I added it with a reference to both genres and if you don't believe me, you may weigh-in at my talk: User talk:Hjfcool#Unwell (song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfcool (talk • contribs) 23:03, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Why not include artist with song title

For 90% of songs there's only 1 artist. So why then not for such songs always have FOO redirect to FOO (artist song)? Whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In short: with most song articles disambiguation like that is unnecessary, as there is no conflict in naming the article. WP:SONG#Naming — Mayast (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mayast, thanks, yes I'm well aware of how WP:DAB and how we disambiguate generally, say footballers, but that isn't the question I asked. What I asked was a different question: Assuming cases where the baseline redirects anyway, then whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? Take an example "Rainy Days and Mondays" - whom does not having (FOO artist) in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk)

The important question is, how does having the artist in the article title benefit anyone more than just having the song's title (assuming, of course, that there is only one such song with an article)? Right now "Rainy Days and Mondays" doesn't have the artist listed afterwards, nor do I see a need for it. Why would someone search for Rainy Days and Mondays (The Carpenters song)? In all likelihood they'll simply search for Rainy Days and Mondays, and find what they're looking for. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple, how does having the artist in the article title benefit anyone having more than just having the song's title?

(1) It benefits those looking for the song that the autocomplete or Google result or iPhone search confirms that they have found what they were looking for.

(2) It benefits those not looking for the song that the autocomplete or Google result or iPhone search confirms that they have not found what they were looking for.

(3) It benefits editors that they don't have to worry about another article mentioning a different song either at the time or in the future.

So that's 3 benefits to 3 groups. Good question, easily answered. So what is the answer on the other side of the coin? Can someone please help by giving an example in answer to my question: Assuming cases where the baseline redirects anyway, then whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that your answers actually answer my question all that much. Again using your example of "Rainy Days and Mondays", was there another article that someone typing in that phrase could reasonably have expected to go to? A Google search resulted in 2 youtube videos, then the Wikipedia article, with a short excerpt below the link saying that it is about the song (specifically, it quotes the beginning of the lead, which immediately labels it as the song). Having the artist after the title would not have significantly benefited someone searching for it on Google over the result they already got. Same with WP's autocomplete: typing in Rainy Days and Mondays gave the song as the only autocomplete result, and with no similar competing results, I don't see how having the artist name afterwards would have changed anything for the user. (I can't comment on your iPhone search thing, as I don't own an iPhone.) As for your third point, if and when that becomes an issue, it can be dealt with then. But further disambiguating articles that don't currently need to be DABed does not appear to actually provide any significant additional benefit for users, and even goes against WP:PRECISION.

As for your question, I would say it is not a benefit to editors who would have to then go and change some/dozens/possibly hundreds of links (depending on what song is being moved) to redirect to the new location. This would be a waste of time that could have been better spent improving articles. It also sets a bad example for less-experienced users, who would then create or move articles to locations that are too precise (again, WP:PRECISION), whether about song articles or other topics. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I picked that song at random without proposing it for the type of test you have run. If we try that test with 10 other songs from Category:2014 songs it is certain that in at least half cases the result will be greatly obstructive to readers. But even with that example you don't deny, if I have understood you correctly, that including the artist name benefits (1) those looking for the song, (2) those not looking for the song.

Another Love - lack of artist not helpful to readers.

All We Need Is Love - lack of artist not helpful to readers.

Etc.

As regards (3) whether it benefits editors that they don't have to worry about another article mentioning a different song either at the time or in the future, since that relates to the future evidently it helps editors relative to the current situation.

Regarding your two objections:

A. CHANGE LINKS. No one has to change any links. Why would anyone change any links?

B. TOO PRECISE. But "why" is the name of an artist "too precise" - this isn't a footballer bio, we're talking about media products where the main product is the artist, each individual song is only a peripheral, a byproduct. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I should say that what I'm asking is purely on the level of what is best for readers, I am trying to understand who benefits from removing an artist name when the redirect redirects there anyway just as redirect Mozart redirects to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This is my question.
I have asked this of a couple of individual editors before and never received an answer. The usual answer is in the lines of "it doesn't help readers, it is WP:PRECISION" which is fine, we can do things that make life difficult for readers if policy is iron-clad with no exceptions, but WP:PRECISION says there can be exceptions:

Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. For instance:

I feel what we're doing here is akin to Horowitz which would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. We're creating 1000s of articles which are a giant frustrating guessing game for readers, and for no discernable reason. Why are we doing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, which I hope will resolve some of the disputes going on. FWIW I would be opposed to adding an artist's name in every instance, but I would appreciate if WP:SONGDAB took precedence over WP:DAB. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being relevant for something as transiently famous as a song... and I do mean famous rather than notable... it's nothing short of a joke. It would be nice if we didn't see the Paris example trotted out to confirm primarytopic applies to songs. As for WP:DAB the only cultural item akin to a song mentioned is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" for which I only found 19 ghits.

The reason I started taking an interest in song RMs because of the incessant page moves, the jockeying for position between two songs with the same name (mine is PT, not yours, yah-boo!). Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Richhoncho well said. FWIW I also would be opposed to adding an artist's name in every instance, there are 5-10% of songs where Google Books shows several versions or a one-hit-wonder artist have made the song more distinctive than the singer. Back in the sheet music era particularly. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Then how would we determine in a particular case if the artist's name should be added or not? Should the users who start new song articles always check Google Books results? I don't see how that could work. If the majority decides to change the guidelines, they should apply to all the songs, not just 10% or 50% or 90% of articles in the scope of this WikiProject. Anyway, I would oppose such a change, as I like the current naming guidelines. — Mayast (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP has been, quietly and without too much opposition, using the first notable artist for disambiguation. By keeping to a chronological order there isn't much room for dispute. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mayast, same answer as Richhoncho. In practice it already works well for those articles which do include artist name, so no reason it wouldn't work for the others.

No, users who start new song articles (with invariably means 2014 songs) wouldn't need to check Google Books results - they just create with a complete title FOO (artist song), so much easier than the current having to check what else is there.

But this is all further down the road. I asked this question to see if anyone can say whom hiding the artist helps. So far that question hasn't been addressed. Who benefits from so many songs not having artists? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiding the artist never helps unless the song is known for multiple recordings/performances. So, generally, and with notable exceptions, it is better to add the artist name for anything post-1965 and use year or songwriter for pre-1965. Pretty much what has been happening except for one or two editors that thing everything should be the same - as if it could be!

I also see no point in moving articles for the sake of moving articles. We presently have an RM to remove a artist's name when nearly 200 different editors have edited the page over a 6 month period. Where is the point? Surely stability has been established? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a bracketed term following a headword is a disambiguator. I can't see why principles stated at Wikipedia:Disambiguation ought to be changed for one class of article, song titles. Many articles would possibly profit to a certain extent and in certain circumstances from having more elaborate descriptors, but that's not how article names are determined here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Michael , thanks for your addition to this discussion. I agree with you that many articles would profit to a certain extent... There is a reasonable argument that, for song titles, we say, for example, "The Madonna song, Holiday" to distinquish what we are talking about, or Holiday (Madonna song), and that could be supported by WP:COMMONNAME. We also need to consider the commonality of cultural titles and the long term significance (WP:DAB) of song titles. There are very few "pop songs" which have long term significance and many titles are used more than once - especially those that use common phrases like One More Night. Now the problem is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, do we look to see which song is primarytopic (and it is not primaryARTICLE) on a daily basis? a weekly basis? (contrary to WP:RECENTISM) or is it better to disambiguate all songs called "One More Night" by artist? This is why WP:SONGDAB (and authorized by policy WP:AT says if there are two or more songs with the same title you disambiguate fully. I think that is perfect solution, unfortunately some want to apply PT in every instance.

Finally, whatever WP policies say, there will always be defendable reasons not adhere to a policy. In the case of songs, I would guess that about 20% are disambiguated by the word (song) and about the same again are disambiguated by (artist song). It's not going away, sometimes it is absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable and sometimes not strictly speaking necessary or unavoidable, but a good idea, nevertheless. If XYZ is a unique song title, it is only unique until somebody else uses the title, so if it is at XYZ (Foo song) what benefit to move? IS the title misleading? In most cases stability of article is much more important that WP:DAB. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Mayast and Michael Bednarek already explained it all. We don't disambiguate titles if there's no reason for it, and that's everything we need to bear in mind for now. Anyway, this should actually be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or somewhere else. Why should song articles work differently than the rest of Wikipedia? Why shouldn't this be applied at album articles too? Let us give a wider group of editors the opportunity to discuss such a change in naming conventions. I would be against it anyway for the aforementioned reasons. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victão Lopes. This is supposed to be a discussion, and a preliminary discussion at that - it can't, nor should it, change anything at WP:DAB. You are right, much of what is being discussed here could affect not only songs and albums, but books, films and other creative/artistic works. Are you sure you wouldn't like to discuss why you think everything is correct as it is? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe I took it hastily as a proposal. But I'll keep my opinion anyway, articles should be disambiguated when they need to be disambiguated. Forgive me for sounding too surly, but it's as simple as it is and I still don't understand why it should be different now. It's not intuitive to create a song article with the artist name attached to it if there's no clear reason for it. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a proposal, it's a hang on, what are we doing and why? discussion. You say "It's not intuitive to create a song article with the artist name attached to it if there's no clear reason for it." but there may well be a clear reason for it. Currently guidance effectively says:

When creating an article do not check if another song of the same title is already mentioned in an artist bio or an album article. If you can create the article at FOO then do so. If you cannot create at FOO, create at FOO (song) even if a dozen other songs exist. Do not hatlink the article "for other songs see disambiguation". Do not include the artist name (The Angels song) except as a last resort.

That's slightly overstated by inverting current guidance language but the result is pretty much the same. Billboard always gives the artist name when mentioning a song, so it isn't really a case of Paris, France or Cadillac (car), this is an area which absolute brevity, intuitive or not, may not be user friendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In which context do you refer to Billboard? I mean, mentioning a song within a news story or a chart page is quite different than entitling an article. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since we are discussing titles the context is either title of an article or title in a chart page, the artist is always clearly indicated. Incidentally, this idea that there is a wp rule that titles must be as short as possible isn't the case, for example take Harusame which redirects to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937). If this was a song we'd delete [Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937)] to remove artist, but several project guidelines - particularly WP SHIPS, WP:USPLACE, and WP ROYALTY AND NOBILITY place recognizable titles ahead of maximum shortness. This is entirely a wp songs decision. If we wanted to include (Pat Boone song) we could, it's entirely within WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a WP:MUSIC guideline. We have How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb instead of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (U2 album). And we have Adam Clayton instead of Adam Clayton (U2 member). I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is the best title because that's how the song was named and there's no other song with that name here. Since you started this topic by questioning who would be benefiting from the absence of the artists' names at song articles titles, let me ask: who is being affected by it? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable question. Yes I started this topic by questioning who would be benefiting from the absence of the artists' names at song articles titles, to the question: who is being affected by it? I would say all readers, but especially

[i] any Android/iPhone reader who does not have image display activated on their mobile, or who is looking for an album song which either (a) does not have an uploaded image, (b) where image itself doesn't say the band or title

[ii] any reader, using PC or mobile, who is looking for a song or album before 2005. Maybe the practice of concealing artist names wouldn't be so user-unfriendly if we had equal coverage from 1930-1990 as we do of 2010-2014, but we don't, the article stock is massively overloaded to WP:RECENT products which often have articles before they've been released. What that means is that any reader wanting a 1960s 1970s 1980s song will almost certainly go to [What I am looking for (song)] and find it is [Same title as what I am looking for (but a new 2014 artist I've never heard of]. Sometimes editors of 2010-2014 hatnote their articles to allow readers to find a dab, or link to albums where 1960s 1970s 1980s singles get a mention, but generally we don't, generally we funnel readers to the latest 2014 single. The 2010 - 2014 song and album categories are crammed with semi-notable short-lived product covering over 100s of equally or more notable songs from 1960s 1970s 1980s.

[iii] editor will benefit from not having to constantly trim titles

So that is my answer. I did actually state it above already so I'm wondering why I'm being asked to repeat it. But whatever. So, please, Victor, someone explain who benefits from habitually removing an artist name where there are no cover versions and where the artist is the main product. The problem of what we're doing has been stated several times above, the benefit, any benefit, has not been stated once. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Question

In ictu oculi asked above, For 90% of songs there's only 1 artist. So why then not for such songs always have FOO redirect to FOO (artist song)? Whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? and there doesn't appear to be an answer other than "look at the guidelines." So I would like to ask a slightly reworded version of the question :-

• If an editor creates a song article with the title Unique song title (Foo artist) and it remains at there for a period of time, could it stay there as being stable, or must it be moved to Unique song title, per quidelines?

Thanks, --Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would move it ;) I'm not sure what you mean by stability, but if you worry about readers not being able to find the article, there will always be the "Unique_song_title (Foo artist)" redirect, and in my opinion that solves the problem. — Mayast (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mayast here. Additionally, if a song has always been at "Song Title", I see nothing wrong with adding a redirect page at "Song Title (Artist Name)" that redirects back to the article "Song Title". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be moved. Stability is guaranteed by the subsequent redirect. At the worst scenario, one would have to edit many internal links so that they go directly to the article and not via a redirect. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, fair answers, although I would not move, I can't fault your answers. So now I ask question #2

• A different song with the same name becomes notable and an editor creates Unique song title (Foo2 artist), is there anything a conscientious editor must do?

Again, thanks for your answers. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are a few options here, if someone has more ideas please add them as well:
1. The first song is still the most notable song with that title (would be best to determine that in a discussion with other Editors). In that case it can be left at "Unique_song_title" or "Unique_song_title (song)" (if there are also other, non-song articles), and a hatnote is added saying something like This article is about the song by Foo. For the song by Foo2, see "Unique_song_title (Foo2 song)". Or, if there are multiple songs with the same title, the hatnote can look like this: For other songs with this title, see "Unique_song_title (disambiguation)". Example: Yesterday.
2. It's hard to tell which of the two songs is more notable. In that case, you might move the first article to "Unique_song_title (Foo song)", and create the article for the second song at "Unique_song_title (Foo2 song)". Then "Unique_song_title" can act as a disambiguation page with links to those articles. But this option is a little tricky, as you need to check what pages used to link to the first song's article and manually edit those links, so that they don't point at the disambiguation page – that's why it's easier to make a move like this with articles with a smaller number of links within Wikipedia. One small piece of advice: usually many links come from articles about other songs/albums etc. by artist Foo, even though our Unique_song_title wasn't mentioned anywhere in the text in those articles. That's because the articles are linked via {{Foo}} artist template, so you just need to edit the template and wait a few hours for all the pages to catch up. — Mayast (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I've just stumbled upon "Like I Love You", which is another good example of the first option. However, the article was missing the hatnote and there was no disambiguation page fot this title, so I created it: Like I Love You (disambiguation). Mayast (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Same as Mayast. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply here, and a brief discussion can solve any possible controversies. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Victão Lopes wrote above, in a response to IIO, "No, this is a WP:MUSIC guideline." which suggests that you do approve of music/song guidelines. So why should WP:SONGDAB (a music guideline) be usurped by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is avoided by many other projects, is not compulsory, and a careful reading does suggest that, even when applied, should only be for significantly and long-term article names. Sorry for brevity of question, I need to get back to this particular discussion in full). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi and Richhoncho, I'm answering you both here. I'm still not convinced that the absence of the artists names on song articles is such a big deal. In ictu oculi expressed concerns about Android/iPhone users, but I'm a Android user myself and I couldn't understand how the absence of (FOO song) in Example Song could be a problem for me or anyone else. I'm constantly creating album articles (assuming In ictu oculi's logic also applies to album articles) and I see no problem in trimming titles, it's much easier to create the internal links afterwards. Richhoncho, I'm not putting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above WP:SONGDAB. to be honest, I didn't understand why you linked them; WP:SONGDAB agrees with me ("When necessary, disambiguation should be done") and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a matter for multiple articles. What would it have to do with a case like "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", which I mentioned above? Talking about this song, let me ask two questions:

1st: What would change (for readers, for editors) if we moved I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For to I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song)?

2nd: If someone needs to "benefit" from I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For not being I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song), does it mean someone is benefiting from Pierce Brosnan not being Pierce Brosnan (actor); Nightwish not being Nightwish (Finnish band); Campos dos Goytacazes not being Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro and so on? Victão Lopes ^Fala!

sorry I can't see who signed this I would answer that that would be because (1) Campos dos Goytacazes is a town not song, it isn't a byproduct of a main product (band or singer), (2) doesn't have 6 more Campos dos Goytacazes in en.wp album articles, Billboard, allmusic.com and Amazon. The same is true for Pierce Brosnan, he has notability in himself, not inherited from being sung by a notable artist, and consequently he is recognisable without his singer. That essentially is the difference between the latest installment of an artist's media franchise in the 2010s and a self-standing notable broadsheet song in the 1700s. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what if someone creates a film with such a name? Then people may search for it, and they'll only find the city, not the hypothetical movie, unless someone creates the article Campo dos Goytacazes (film). Please, see my next comment down there for some additions on this reasoning.Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes: I was wondering the same things, but wasn't able to express myself so clearly. I agree with you 100%. Mayast (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll read everything later, I would just like to point out that the post with the Pierce Brosnan example was written by Victor Lopes, not me. — Mayast (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you haven't noticed that IIO and I are not in agreement, but I do see his point that to have the name of the artist is hardly disfigurement. My questions were designed to see where a certain scenario will take editors who responded and I am grateful for your responses. The three of you clearly replied PT says do this and that's what we do. I am not debating where Pierce Brosnan, Nightwish or Campos dos Goytacazes should be - that is misleading and not relevant to song titles. I am happy to accept that I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is in the correct article namespace, but I would not move from I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song) (if it had been there). I just did a search of both BMI and ASCAP for I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For and didn't find the U2 song, but I did find two other songs with precisely the same title, one written by Melanie Safka and one by Samuel Bar (I think). And this is the root of the problem, song titles are rarely original, and I am sure that some people have been looking for the other two songs and only found U2. Is that correct for an encyclopedia that is not paper? Bearing in mind popular music is compartmentalized by the listeners by age, nationality, genre and other reasons, who is WP to think that the U2 song is primary and is it primary for all readers? This is why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline which suggests a solution when one usage is far more important than another over a period of time, OTOH WP:SONGDAB says quite clearly that songs should not ranked by primarytopic. There are further benefits to songdab in the long run, it cuts down the number of moves and long winded discussions over which song is PT (a debate which changes over time as in On My Way (song)).

If I can get you guys to accept songdab should be applied over PT, we have much more stability, a lot less re-dabbing, and more time to improve the coverage of songs. That's a win-win situation in my book. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

PS I am NOT advocating moving the U2 song - it wasn't me who mentioned it first... --Richhoncho (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I know you're not, I'm just using it as an example because it is a song that matches the description IIO used when he opened this topic (a song with only one artist). Look, I see your point, but I'm going back to one of the earliest questions of this discussion: why should we disambiguate what doesn't need to be disambiguated? You gave us examples of other songs named I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For - but none of them have articles on Wikipedia. What difference would (U2 song) make then? You are citing two guidelines that are in general used only when two or more articles with the same title exist. Mostly because of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, I don't think it is a good idea to have editors creating articles like FOOFOOFOO (Metallica song) instead of FOOFOOFOO as a standard procedure because that would mean they are editing base on suppositions, I mean, based on the possibility that one day someone may search for FOOFOOFOO by Some Minor Artist. Even if someone does search for it, they will be taken to FOOFOOFOO by Metallica, and with just a glance at the first lines or at the infobox they'll find out they're not in the right page. What difference would (Metallica song) have made then? What does (NAMEOFTHEARTIST song) avoid, and what information can it provide for the user that an infobox or a introductory paragraph cannot? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it would save the users 5-10 seconds of the little disc spinning expensively on a mobile (at however much their mobile provider charges for waiting) only to painfully download a song article just to find out who the mystery artist was, and find out it wasn't the one they were looking. Mainly I'm talking about songs where other songs with the same title already exist in (i) album articles, (ii) Billboard (iii) on allmusic and (iv) Amazon, which is most songs. If we don't cover song we should be upfront about it, so as not to waste readers' time and phone bills. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

May I note by the way that we seem to be having a 1-way conversation whereby I answer questions, but my Harusame question is not addressed. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is your Harusame question? Completing my comment above: Wikipedia is already quite confusing and technically complex for new editors, why confuse them further by saying "hey, create song articles with the name people would search for, but don't forget about those who could search for another song with that same name"? The possibility of adopting this procedure may pave the way for subsequent oddities such as the ones I cited above. It's all in the same logic of "let me specify X because someone might one day search for Y and they'll be disappointed and unfairly charged for browsing the wrong article in their mobile phones". Films, albums, games... they're all products subjected to having other works with the same name. Why are we only talking about songs? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

IIO's Harusame question was in the above section, but the gist of it is that a number of projects insist on fuller disambiguation, so why not in music? I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a U2 song and no reason to hide the band name has been been really offered. With regard to your "not biting the newbies" I dread to think how many songs have been started at Song (Foo song) and then (Foo song) removed because it was possible. How's that for confusing new editors? Returning to my unanswered question, why should WP:PRIMARYTOPIC take precedence of WP:SONGDAB, as Victão Lopes and Mayast suggest above? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you're right: many songs were indeed started as Song (Foo song) and then moved to a more appropriate title. I myself did that a number of times - leaving a link to the appropriate guideline at the edit summary to clarify any possible doubts. And I already answered that, I don't know why you keep saying I've put PRIMARYTOPIC above SONGDAB, I just cited them for a case in which we have two or more articles, which is still not the case for "I Still Haven't...". If another article with that name was created and then the original article was moved do "... (U2 song)", I wouldn't be so disappointed, but I would if we started "pre-disambiguating" titles based on the supposition that someone might search for a different thing somewhere in the future. And if there are other projects that endorse this oddity, all I can do is regret and respect their decision, as I would regret and accept if this becomes a rule here too. If they are going in a way I don't consider right, I won't simply support it being applied here. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two answers to your responses above,

1. In respect of, many songs were indeed started as Song (Foo song) and then moved to a more appropriate title. I myself did that a number of times I have to ask, why bother? Here I diverge from IIO, who would want to move Song Title to Song Title (Foo song), which I find equally pointless unless necessary.
2. In respect to PT/SONGDAB you said, "#Same as Mayast. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply here, and a brief discussion can solve any possible controversies." in my response to Unique Song Title which is obviously putting PT above SONGDAB. Obviously if you didn't mean that, or misconstrued, it would remove my major concern in this discussion.

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ad. 2 – I don't see what's the problem. I think Victor Lopes meant that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to a case where one song is more notable than another song with the same title – so that would be the first point of my original reply to your question, where I mentioned "Yesterday" as an example, and later also added "Like I Love You" (to which Victor directly responded). While WP:SONGDAB deals with the way titles should be disambiguated, when this disambiguation is necessary. So it should be used when it's hard to determine which of the songs is most notable, or even with all the less-notable songs that weren't chosen as the primary topic, for example Like I Love You (R.I.O. song). I see it as two different issues. — Mayast (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - and only to cases in which the other song is actually covered by a Wikipedia article. In other words: I do not think it is correct to disambiguate articles before there's a technical reason for it. And I am not convinced that not doing so is affecting anyone's Wikipedia experience. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am totally confused. Where in songdab does it reference primarytopic? There is an inherent contradiction between the two guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoje (random section break for ease of editing)

Victor

First thanks for discussing, really, it's good. You say "I do not think it is correct to disambiguate articles before there's a technical reason for it" - that's what we're discussing. Let's take a specific example, which you invited to do above [I have to say it was difficult to find because your move log shows enormously helpful edits to Wikipedia, congratulations, you have my respect as a massively productive editor] but I did find one:

Example: Boratsagdiyev created Hoje (album) 24 September 2009‎, a week later [in the useful and productive routine of cleaning up new articles, again congratulations], you removed "(album)" [again correctly and according to Songdab] and moved Hoje (album) to Hoje with comment "(no need to specify)". At the time no major problem, as I think everyone knows "Hoje" is Portuguese for today, but no other subject like Hoje (magazine) jpg had an article. However in the same year Hoje (Os Paralamas do Sucesso album) 2005, redirect Hoje (Gal Costa album) 2005 was also released - no comparison obviously, a 1st rank band vs a 2nd rank singer. Gal Costa has no fans among en.wp editors (in fact few fans among pt.wp editors too) and has a badly sourced and developed article here. There was also (redirect I just created) Hoje (Taiguara album) 1969. The problem with "Hoje" only really came when Hoje (film) was released. I have just moved Hoje (Os Paralamas do Sucesso album) to a full title, as an illustration of what we're talking about, as it's a very very typical case, far more typical than the U2 example you cited above.

Technically it is possible to move an article like Hoje (album) to Hoje, yes.

You say "And I am not convinced that not doing so is affecting anyone's Wikipedia experience" - I think differently, I think such moves affect my experience and a friend I was discussing this with on the subway thinks the same. The way reception signal works on my subway line is that basically you get one chance to download/look at a Wikipedia article per stop. If you get the wrong article, you have to wait to the next stop. Having images switched on slows the process, but having images switched on is essential on an Android (for songs/albums at least) because so many are titled like Hoje. It's often impossible to know which of 15 or 20 possible subjects you are getting until it is too late. Which might be okay for those whose mobile providers have unlimited bytes and superfast connectivity but is a real pain for the rest of us. Can I ask do you have a no limits mobile package and good roaming signal? I don't.

These guidelines WP:PRIMARYTOPIC WP:DAB were designed for cities and people, not for sub-products of an artist. I don't suppose Taiguara and Gal Costa have many fans these days, so few users will complain to Jimbo if we waste their time and increase their mobile phone bills, but even for Os Paralamas do Sucesso fans it would help Os Paralamas do Sucesso fans to know they have what they're looking for. Example: If I were (for my own example) looking for Get a Life (Stiff Little Fingers album) and the results came up "Get a Life (Stiff Little Fingers album)" I wouldn't think "those b*stards, how dare they put the artist name in brackets, this is the only album" and I wouldn't run in anger to AFD to delete Get a Life (Vice Squad album), I'd just think "Well, thank you Wikipedia, I have found what I wanted" - I wouldn't be upset at the hint that other albums existed.

Victor, does that answer your question? Can you now see how misleading and/or mysterious song/album titles might affect someone else's Wikipedia experience" (not yours, mine). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the compliments. This is a very healthy discussion because all of us are going straight to the point, without sarcasm, personal attacks and harshnesses. Which is not that easy after a discussion drags on for that long, many people would simply lose their patience.

Look, I really appreciate and understand your concerns about readers - seriously, I'm a journalist in real life so I truly care about how I can make things easier and clearer for people reading my stuff. But hey, I would never AFD an article so that another can get rid of its "(Artist album)"! As I said, I'm just against pre-disambiguations, that's all. No, I don't have unlimited mobile packages, but neither would I die if I didn't find what I was looking for, and nobody should. Remember, there's a whole community of editors that you need to convince in order to have this new naming pattern considered. I don't think we will ever be able to convince each other 'cause we have strong conflicting opinions - but nobody can say we didn't try. I'm just saying I have no other way of explaining my views, English is not my native language, so that already limits me quite a lot. Btw, won't be able to come back here before the next 36 hours. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 07:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Victor, That's all good.I'd ｅｘｐｅｃｔ that if such a discussion takes root then it would still　ｔａｋｅ　1-2 years to gradually convince editors of the advantage of a WP SHIPS approach to song titles. But I believe the move to mobiles and tablets makes it necessary to think about seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victão Lopes. Again it is a useful conversation. Compliments to all involved without exception. Noting that you are a journalist got me thinking about newspaper headlines. A newspaper might have a headline "Celebrity (does something)" because they know the celebrity's name won't sell papers but people might buy the paper to find out the name of the celebrity, but if it is a famous celebrity the headline will be "Named celebrity (does something)." Nor do you ever get a song title without a reference to the artist (headline or text) unless it is a national anthem etc. WP has a different criteria, and that is to get readers (and not necessarily editors!) to the page they want and bean-counting the statistics does not help as IIO points out. In real life, with few exceptions, we say variants of artist and song/album. We wouldn't start a conversation have you heard "Hoje" without reference to whether we referring to an album or a song and which artist. Why should WP be exempt from normal human communication standards? I also note it is a peculiarity of WP which uses the article name as the URL - something Allmusic Amazon etc don't do! Cheers. Have a great break! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I still have to read a large part of this discussion, but I wanted to make a comment on the Wikipedia/newspaper article title comparison. We need to think about what exactly is the subject of the work in question. In case of Wikipedia articles [that we discuss here] the subjects are particular songs/albums, etc., while the newspaper article "Celebrity (does something)" usually discribes the action, something that the celebrity has done – and the article title reflects that. A title with just the celebrity's name might suggest that what you are about to read is the celebrity's biography. Not to mention the fact that newspaper headline must be catchy to get the reader's attention, while an entry name in an encyclopedia has a very different purpose.
By the way, I hope I understood you correctly, and you said that in normal conversations you usually give the name of an artist when you want to talk about a song ("We wouldn't start a conversation have you heard "Hoje" without reference to whether we referring to an album or a song and which artist."). Let me turn the question a little: what about films? Do you always mention the director or the year when it was released? — Mayast (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point of "context" for song article titles. We don't for films because the director isn't, generally speaking, the star of the show (a bit like ambiguating songs by record producer!). BTW You will note that Yesterday (Beatles song) is now the location of the Beatle song. Not necessarily because of songdab, but still now in the right place. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't mention the director, then maybe you mention the lead actor? ;) In my experience, usually just the title is enough, as my friends know which films are currently played in theaters, and which one of them I'm talking about. For example, when I say Transcendence, they know that it's the sci-fi film with Johnny Depp, and not the 2012 Chinese concert film.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that songs are pieces of work just as albums, films, books, etc. If the guidelines were to be changed (to which I would oppose), they should be equally changed for all these groups of articles, not just one. So, for example, we should also move Carrie (novel) to Carrie (Stephen King novel), even though there is no other novel of that title on English Wikipedia – according to In ictu oculi, it would make searching for this novel much easier on mobile phones.
As for the Beatles, I wrote earlier that a song can stay at "Unique_song_title" if it is the most notable song/article of that name, which should be determined in a discussion. That's exactly what happened with "Yesterday" – the article was moved as a result of a discussion in which users decided that it was no longer the primary topic. So I don't understand what's your point. — Mayast (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mayast, to be honest yes the WP SHIPS titling philosophy would probably benefit mobile phone users for novels as well. Except that the incidence of "title more notable than author" would rise significantly, authors are not the primary product for books as singers are for songs, and we don't have such a giant imbalance to 2010-2014 ignoring more notable books from 1960-2000. For films I can't see how there is a primary product at all, each film stands on its own merits, a film isn't a byproduct of an artist franchise like a song or album. Sorry I guess I disagree that "songs are pieces of work just as albums, films, books, etc." - not now. They were in the big band era yes, but not today. An album isn't usually standalone from artist either, though more are than songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Other projects (additional sub-heading to help focus the discussion)

There has been much comment regarding “other projects” in this debate and how songs should not differ. Here are some examples variations from other projects.

1. Plants. Use the scientific name not the common name. i.e. Narcissus jonquilla as opposed to Jonquil which is a disambiguation page. See where the common name Daffodil takes you!. Whether intentional or not, this avoids primary topic.
2. Place Names, Uses a comma rather than brackets to disambiguate.
3. Ships, as already pointed out, are automatically disambiguated by their number, see USS America which is a disambiguation page. Note: This in particular avoids WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
4. Aircraft, as above, plus manufacturers’ name. See Lockheed P-38 Lightning
5. Films are disambiguated by year (not actor/producer/studio). Aagin, avoids PT.
6. And to give you an idea, here is the list of the variations by project. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions.
   

I would think that there is enough there to confirm that, providing that policies are adhered to, then there is absolutely no reason why songs can’t use more practical guidelines suitable for songs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Current requested moves

Participants in this discussion (or other Project participants) may be interested in several current relevant requested moves for song/album articles:

• Talk:All_the_Best!#Requested_moves
• Talk:Yesterday#Move_request (June_2014)
• Talk:Best..._I#Requested_moves
• Talk:G.U.Y._(song)#Requested_move
• Talk:Get_Back#Requested_moves (2)
• Talk:1979–1983#Requested_moves
• Talk:1982–2000#Requested_moves
• Talk:1992–2002#Requested_move
• Talk:A_Collection...#Requested_move

I may have missed a couple. As you can see, the appropriateness of disambiguating songs and albums has been much discussed lately. A lot of the same folks have been contributing over and over (myself included), so it would be good to get fresh perspectives. Dohn joe (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dohn joe, thanks. FWIW the current song RMs can be seen on the front of the project page here, which is updated daily. All requested moves can be seen at Category:Requested moves --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

While we're here, just to wrap up with two other points which have been made elsewhere.

(1) WP:AT The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

(2) SPECIAL:RANDOM - this shows most articles are actually broadly recognisable: e.g. (1) Charles-Thomas Maillard De Tournon is a French man. (2) John Aston (cricketer) is a cricketer. (3) Geoffrey Pole is an English-speaking man. (4) List of electoral wards in West Yorkshire is what it says, (5) Richard Van Valkenburg is man of Dutch descent (6) Jiangmen Railway Station is a railway station in a town called Jiangmen (7) Oliva sericea is scientific name, probably for a plant [wrong it was a snail] (8) Nick Bacon is a modern era English speaking person (9) The First Men in the Moon is a work of literature or possibly film [it was the former], (10) University of Kansas Natural History Museum is what it says. (11) Parks in St. Louis is what it says, (12) Amadou Bakayoko is a Western African, (13) The Carnival Band (folk group) is what it says, (14) Clarissa Parish is an English-speaking person, (15) 23rd Infantry Division (United States) is what it says, (16) Billie Sol Estes is an English speaking person of hispanic descent. (16) Palazzo Corsini is a building in Italy, (17) Halfback (American football) is a description of the role, (18) Bernard J. Ray is an English speaking person, (19) CAC Ceres either some kind of machine or institution at a place called Ceres, if guessing probably a plane or motorbike [it was a plane], (20) Richard Parkes English speaking person. (21) Iain McChesney likewise, (22) Operation Ivory Coast military operation, guessing Africa but may be a codename [it was Vietnam], (23) Bromelia laciniosa latin name, guessing a plant [it was], (24) Kelvin Valley Railway what it says, (25) Global Legal Information Network (26) Liam Walsh (hurler) (27) Zhiten, Dobrich Province place in Eastern Europe (28) Drumroll, Please media product, guessing a film [close, it was a TV episode] (29) Viti Levu either a bio or place, guessing somewhere in Asia [largest island of Fiji, should have known that] (30) Randevyn difficult, probably a place [wrong, rapper].

Okay, the point of that exercise was that out of 30 random titles 25 are easily identifiable broadly. The other 5 are identifiable to those in the field. Almost all of them are more identifiable than an artist-less song title. Of the 30 the only 1 that is ridiculous is which was moved from Drumroll, Please (How I Met Your Mother) to without the context - probably the most anti-user area of titling on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment to Let It Go (Disney song)

It has been greatly improved since last assessment. Hope to get a B-class (or even A-class, if yiu guys really have A-class reviews, as I saw it says '4' on A-class article count).Forbidden User (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also

There's an ongoing debate here about whether or not to include the radio version of this song as a single infobox. Additional comments are welcomed. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Who (song)

The usage of Dr. Who (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, where Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) has been requested to be renamed to "Dr. Who (song)". For the discussion, see talk: Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammy Award templates

Suddenly a raft of less important Grammy Awards templates are being created. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Grammy Award templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling all genre gurus

Is "indie-flavoured electronica best described as indie rock-influenced electronica, or indietronica? Adabow (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to just quote the author. pedro | talk 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 year end charts?

• Did I find my way to the Finnish yearend charts at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/vuosimyynti/2013/ ?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Is this a Polish yearend chart http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/sklepy/index.php ?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have moved the discussion to WT:CHARTS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Music video modeling roles

When a model becomes the subject of a music video, I noticed that the role is described as "Principle" in some resumes. Others say "Dancer/Model". What is correct? for a music video chronology table with a column for role?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Life Is Better With You -- song by Michael Franti

I noticed that there is an entry for an older song with this title but not the new song by Michael Franti. I'm not really into editing Wikipedia but thought someone who does do editing would like to know. Just FYI. 50.39.121.52 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)