Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

:See also discussion started at category talk:musical compositions, derived from a RfC topic

• /Archive 1: 2005 – 2011

Tequila (song)

According to the policy page: "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)"." This is a request for an admin to complete the move of that page to Tequila (instrumental). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors jumping in and revising guidelines w/o consensus

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Articles in series:

Revision as of 16:17, 31 January 2012 (edit) (undo)
Pmanderson (talk | contribs)
(→Articles in series: per talk.)
"or by some other well-established method, such as a prevalent nickname (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which should have a redirect from the systematic name)."

Per what talk? Where was any consensus for this?

In the meantime, Melodia has correctly responded with
Latest revision as of 16:42, 31 January 2012 (edit) (undo)
Melodia (talk | contribs)
(→Articles in series: The whole point of it keeping its name is that it's not a 'nickname' per se)
changing "nickname" to "non-generic name, such as", but still leaving the remaining added wording unchanged.

Why would anyone feel free to jump in and take it upon himself to just go in and change the wording - and the meaning - of a guideline willy-nilly when there is obviously no consensus for such a revision? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know about anyone else here, but if I had what I thought would be a clarification or improvement to a policy or guideline page, I would go to its talkpage and create a New section titled Proposed change in wording. At least that's what I would do. It seems only reasonable. Not to mention polite. (And thank you, Melodia, for fixing the edit, correcting and maintaining the important distinction between a nickname and a true name assigned by the composer.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? MistyMorn (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That leads to revert warring - I think Melodia's revision was preferable as a temporary fix, and now discussion. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree; there is always some room to be WP:BOLD, but the general encouragement of BOLDness lessens on a guideline page like this one. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct in making that important distinction, Dohn joe. Policies and guidelines are different from articles; and we are already thick with confusing discussions on this talkpage. Any ad hoc changes to the guideline page are out of order. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just thought that WP:BRD could have provided a rationale for the change, given the lack of any response so far to JCScaliger's reasoned Eine Kleine objection.

BRD has its uses, MistyMorn, but with or without a specific response to the post pointed to, I'm afraid I still think going in and changing the text without notice of intent here was wrong. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been so bold either. But my limited understanding is that such an edit was legitimate. Certainly, the points raised by JCScaliger will have to be addressed sooner or later. MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

Are there substantive reasons why Eine Kleine Nachtmusik should not be placed where it is? This is at least clear; those who would prefer a different clarity should say so, and say why. JCScaliger (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the new wording is a problem, but I've added one word (exceptionally) in clarification. Please say if anyone disagrees with it. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds much in practice; this example will only be appealed to in cases which are as exceptional as "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is. I would not have added the word; but it is not a problem until we start getting arguments whether a piece is "exceptional" or not. JCScaliger (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, 'exceptionally' seems really silly, since even if it's not common, the point is it occurs. The Poem of Ecstasy comes to mind right away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why the phrase "per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA"? Surely it shouldn't be necessary to have to contend that the local guideline is in keeping with the general policy? Anyway, it would have to be: "Article titles for compositions in the same, or similar forms, should always be recognizable, natural, concise, precise and consistent, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA..." Which would be tautological. Suggest to remove the phrase "per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA" from WP:MUSICSERIES. MistyMorn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – I think it's important to explicitly demonstrate that this local guideline is in keeping with the general guideline. This was supported by MistyMorn and others at the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A small disclaimer: My "support" was limited (nuanced) and I certainly never supported excluding the common names. MistyMorn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're "supporting" or "opposing", but I think PMA's diff is fine. I think everyone here is ok with EKM as an exception, right? It seems to be in line with our other policies, also. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposing the bolded suggestion by MistyMorn above my previous contribution.
Pmanderson's edit failed to recognise the lengthy discussion about the difference between problematic nicknames and proper undisputed common names. K. 525's article title is not an exception, it follows WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NCM. I think that the parenthetical "(exceptionally)" is unnecessary. (The spelling of K. 525's name needs to be corrected, too.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PMA's edit might have failed to recognize the discussion here, but it did recognize the much more well-established consensus behind wp:COMMONNAME. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that distinction between nicknames and common names myself; can someone come up with an example where an (undesirable) nickname is "prevalent"? If there aren't any, that's not a problem.

Those who want to change the spelling of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik should begin on that page; is this issue the capital K? That is proper and customary in titles of works in English; English speakers no more use German capitalization than in calling the same piece A Little Night Music. JCScaliger (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Test case/s for the recent amendment

Vaughan Williams symphonies? (ie A Sea Symphony — A London Symphony — A Pastoral Symphony — Sinfonia antartica) Thoughts? MistyMorn (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even look at the articles? "Sometimes refereed to as", "though the composer didn't designate it as such" and "published as". I think it's pretty clear that, despite their common numberings, those pieces are QUITE clearly named as they are now. We don't have an article on Symphonic Poem No. 3 (Liszt), we have it on Les préludes (and the numbering in Liszt's case IS often used). To demonstrate with a really silly example, we don't have Ballet No. 3 (Tchaikovsky), we have The Nutcracker. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to confirm more fully the consensus on this last change without taking anything for granted. For instance, that cases like Eine Kleine are—as you yourself pointed out—not at all exceptional. Here, there are four such examples in a 'series' of nine. That the statement In all cases, current scholarly practice should be followed doesn't stretch to providing a rationale for renaming A Sea Symphony to "Ocean Symphony" (presumably thanks to RVW's own acknowledgement of the 'nickname'). Personally I find it strange to see titles like A Pastoral Symphony without inclusion of the composer's name (unlike, for example, Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)), even though the disambiguation is quite clear. But others will doubtless disagree. As I've posted here, ...when establishing a set of guidelines, it's important to take the time to consider examples and possible issues arising. I've invited comment on a series of examples that I think are broadly similar to Eine Kleine to help explore how the recent changes to WP:MUSICSERIES function in slightly different contexts. The named Vaughan Williams symphonies may be relatively uncontroversial. Apart from one possible exception, they don't really touch on the controversy regarding cases—of which Moonlight is just one—where the common name is also a nickname. I think it's good to know where we are. Adopting guidelines just on a take it or leave it, love it or loathe it basis is wrong, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about WP:COMMONNAME?

For Vaughan Williams Symphonies, so far so good... A Sea Symphony, not "Ocean Symphony", is the common name. And A Pastoral Symphony is (arguably) fine as it stands without any mention of VW. But Beethoven's "Pastoral symphony" is by far the more common name (by a factor of 5 even on Google Scholar: about 2130 vs 375). So, a Question: Given WP:COMMONNAME (and therefore scholarship apart), why "Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)" without 'Pastoral' anywhere in the title? According to WP:UCN, The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. MistyMorn (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To accommodate the common name 'Pastoral' without affecting consistency (in the spirit of WP:MUSICSERIES), Suggest Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven), or something similar. MistyMorn (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your google scholar stats are flawed. The Beethoven outnumbers the Vaughan Williams because more people study Beethoven than Vaughan Williams. Plus there are several other Pastoral Symphonies as well. The issue with the VW is that the composer did not number any of his symphonies until he got to #4. "A Pastoral Symphony" is not a "common name", its how VW published this work. Its the numbering which was retrofitted later. As far as I know, Beethoven's Pastoral is just a nickname and most people also know it as the "6th". Its not like Mozart's 13th serenade.DavidRF (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well taken. Your 'apples versus pears' objection is certainly justified from a 'within-article' perspective. However, I think the point that, when taken out of context, most music lovers associate the phrase "pastoral symphony" firstly with Beethoven (and with Handel, Vaughan Williams, Rawsthorne etc afterwards, depending on the context) is relevant to the identification of the common name. Even Kleinzach acknowledges (below) that WP:COMMONNAME does not exclude nicknames, if accurate and typically used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources [including] sources used as references for the article. As, I think, is the case here. Can we honestly say that 'Pastoral' is not part of the common name for Beethoven's Sixth? MistyMorn (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me one bit if the VW article got a "(Vaughan Williams)" disambiguator. Your google scholar stats didn't compare "Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony" to "Beethoven's Sixth Symphony". Its probably too difficult to get a good result for the latter because of the number of ways you can say "sixth" (sixth, 6th, no. 6, #6, etc) but I'd guess it would be much more even. I think its a question of whether use of the nickname becomes so pervasive that people never use the other title. That's not the case here. Most people also it as the 6th.DavidRF (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Beethoven didn't number his symphonies (or his piano sonatas, or his trios, or...) either. The title page of the "Eroica" simply says "Sinfonia Grande", with the scratched-out Napoleon dedication. The numbering - like the nicknames - came later. Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All unnamed and unnumbered pieces end up getting numbered, whether its by the publisher or the musicologist. And Beethoven knew his symphonies were numbered, unless the famous "because the Eighth is so much better." quote was somehow paraphrased in translation over the years (which is possible). VW gave his works explicit titles until #4 came along.DavidRF (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Replying to DavidRF, edit conflict:) Well taken again, though I'd still argue that the comparison provides pertinent information on usage of 'pastoral' (cf [1] [2] etc). A query: Why do you object to including 'Pastoral' in the title if that name is also also extremely common? Based on current Wikipedia policy, I can't see any reason for systematic exclusion of such universally recognized appellatives. To me, that sort of exclusion seems unfriendly to general users, and out of kilter with what Wikipedia is. MistyMorn (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't like the title getting too busy. Add nicknames and then there's a debate over which nicknames "title-worthy", then people want opus numbers in the title too, or the key. Then the question as to how you order all of that? Many of these issues are rather subtle and require explanation as well. Then we have to run around and move a bunch of articles. Then when people notice that editors in different sections are doing it differently, then we have to move them again. Then we have to move them all when when people change their minds. Just look how long these particular article-name discussions have been going on. "Minor edits" become page-moves which become a big maintenance nightmare. Maybe pragmaticism is not a very convincing viewpoint but there are advantages to the clean and simple system we have now. Navigation templates and the very first line of the article clear things up for everyone. It just seems like much ado about a relatively trivial detail -- what part of the first line gets repeated with a larger font at the very top.DavidRF (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Imo, the 'pragmatic' points you raise are indeed relevant. And some of the intentions behind WP:MUSICSERIES are very good indeed. But at the same time it seems to me that, in the light of WP:COMMONNAME, (in Beethoven) instances such as Pastoral, Eroica, possibly Choral, certainly Kreutzer, Waldstein etc are far more than supplementary information. They're words just about everyone associates with the works. OK, in the case of 'Pastoral', there's also '6th', granted. But 'Piano Sonata No. 21', for example, already seems rather less immediate. MistyMorn (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In all of those cases (except "choral") the nickname is in bold at the very top of the article and is prevalent in all of the nav templates. Sometimes I think this is all about how the category pages look... like they want the category pages to appear like a well-formatted list. Nav templates are a much better way to move around than category pages which are mainly for editors. I don't want to make that point into a strawman, though.DavidRF (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that the bolding helps a lot (though not currently at Hammerklavier, for example) and said so up at Moonlight corral... That was before moving on here to what seemed to me a worthwhile attempt to provide general guidance rather than sporadic shootouts. However, it also seems to me that if Wikipedia has an encyclopedia-wide titling policy in which WP:COMMONNAME plays a pivotal role, then it makes good long-term sense to try to implement that policy appropriately, rather than going off at a tangent by systematically excluding universally recognized common names like Eroica, Pastoral, Waldstein etc. MistyMorn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given some thought to this. Although the issues may be a bit clearer for the Waldstein (unlike with Beethoven's 6th, nobody I know refers to "Beethoven's 21st"), the exceptional familiarity of the Pastoral to a broad public seems to me to make it a particularly relevant test case. So, in a consensus-building spirit, I've gone ahead and made the name change to Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven). MistyMorn (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. I don't know why you would do that without consulting other editors first. Independent of whether or not it should be moved, there are quibbles about quote-types, commas, etc that people would have liked to have dicussed first. My guess is it gets reverted pretty quickly. Page moves are annoying.DavidRF (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance, (Beethoven) is unneeded and unwanted there, unless it needs to be distinguished from another composer's "Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'" -- and it doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean you support Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'? MistyMorn (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not imply that, but neither do I oppose it. I haven't followed up on the stats and rationales above, but whatever name is appropriate by WP:COMMONNAME should be used, with only as much subsequent qualification as needed for WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. My contention is that "Pastoral" is a key component of the common name which should not be excluded. MistyMorn (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: A related issue regarding qualification: Would you also consider Symphony No. 87 (Haydn) (titled as per WP:MUSICSERIES) to be unnecessarily qualified? MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved to Symphony No. 87 per WP:PRECISION: "over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." It is not clear that WP:MUSICSERIES contradicts that; we can consistently apply the qualifier based on the ambiguity, and in any event WP:LOCALCONSENSUS wouldn't override the encyclopedia-wide guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So we have two different concerns. To me the systematic exclusion by WP:MUSICSERIES of extremely common nicknames such as Pastoral, Jupiter, Kreutzer, New World etc is contrary to titling policy and unfriendly to the general readership of Wikipedia. My impression is that there really is only local consensus for this. MistyMorn (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any more of these? I've already responded at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Yet More Beethoven Nickname Page Move Discussions and at Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)#Retitling proposal/s to accommodate the common name 'Pastoral'. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a very reasonable suggestion. Including the nicknames in the titles would certainly greatly increase recognizability, be more similar to commonly used formulations of the titles on recordings, etc, and might possibly be acceptable to a large proportion of the editors who care about these things. One possible objection to the title Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven) is the use of single quote marks. Straight double quote marks are apparently preferred at Wikipedia for searching reasons (see WP:MOS#Quotation marks), although I gather this is not firmly established. Are there well-established examples of quote marks used in titles? (I think the issue of this being an overqualified title does not necessarily apply, when these nicknames are almost invariably included when these works are listed on recordings, in the press, etc., and could be considered as having become an almost inseparable part of the title.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

With/without quotation marks, whatever, as per MOS... I included them to anticipate concerns from others about using nicknames at all. MistyMorn (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think the nickname needs to be in quotes. It's just a question of which type. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting the nicknames in quotes seems strange. What is the common name of this piece? Is it Pastoral or is it Symphony No. 6? If it's Pastoral, then it should be moved to Pastoral (something minimal here). If it is Symphony No. 6 then it probably ought to stay where it is at Symphony No. 6. The idea of putting extra information in the title to help readers who don't recognize the common name has been promoted heavily in the last month or two and is not catching on. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames = WP:COMMONNAME

I've seen several editors around here commenting on the distinction between "common names" and "nicknames" of pieces. And I understand that there can be a technical distinction made there. However - for the purposes of article titles on Wikipedia, "common name" refers to WP:COMMONNAME, and means simply what what it says - a commonly used name. In other words, for purposes of WP:COMMONNAME - and therefore article titles - there is no distinction between a "common name" and a "nickname". The policy states it clearly: "Where the term "common name" appears in this policy it means a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name." Of course, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion used in choosing a title. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions that nicknames went afoul of WP policy. Hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kleinzach has tried to raise this issue before, and was shouted down for being irrelevant. I agree with Kleinzach, and strongly believe that WP:UCN needs serious re-evaluation. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, like the rest of WP:AT, is current policy, as distinct from speculation or wishful thinking. WP:MUSICSERIES needs to follow that policy, rather than somebody's opinion on the policy. (Of course, anyone is fully entitled to request changes to WP:COMMONNAME, but I didn't note many signs of consensus for Kleinzach's appeal in the centralized forum.) MistyMorn (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically Dohn joe is correct here. Nicknames are not specifically addressed in WP:COMMONNAME, indeed the concept of 'common name' itself is undefined (as I have pointed out) hence the general confusion which I have tried to address in as neutral a way as possible. Unfortunately good faith is in short supply at WP:ARTICLETITLE where there has been an unrelated drama going on. --Kleinzach 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy itself seems pretty clear, though, so it's probably ok that the term is not defined. The policy wording and examples make it clear that nicknames can be appropriate titles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't even understand what the appeal was. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in case this is not clear: WP:COMMONNAME refers to any name that is used significantly more often that others. In other words: the name (or names) that is (are) most commonly used. The policy does not care whether the name is the "formal" one, used by cognoscenti, or a nickname used by the uneducated masses. It simply calls for using the one that is used significantly more often in the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Songs and Instrumentals

There is a question at WP:Article titles that relates to this convention's instruction on disambiguation... specifically the line that says: When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".

To answer the question properly, I need to know the original intent behind this provision. Was it added to deal with the situation where two works of music with the same title (one with lyrics and one without), or was it added simply to be pedantic (ie to point out that a work of music isn't a "song" unless it contains singing)? The question relates to a request to move Tequila (song) to Tequila (instrumental). Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was added to stop editors from determining that "instrumental song" is a legitimate definition (as I pointed out at another discussion, it's as silly as a "feline dog"). "Tequila" is an instrumental piece, that at certain points has the word "Tequila" spoken only to fill a break. That is not a lyric, there is no story being told, the hook is played by the sax, etc. Whoever applies even the tiniest bit of common sense will agree that it is not a song, just like "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" or "Salt Peanuts". Why is this move request so "controversial" all of a sudden? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So it was added to be pedantic? Have you considered that voice is often considered an instrument... and thus all "songs" are instrumentals. (not really arguing that... just using it to point out that pedantry can be taken too far). Also... PEnnsylvania 6-5000 apparently does have lyrics. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the voice can be considered an instrument, and in a sense all songs could be regarded as "instrumentals" - except they're not. Popular-speak reserves "instrumentals" for those songs that use only non-vocal instruments; hence, all instrumentals are songs but not all songs are instrumentals. (Popular-speak also calls any musical composition, from any historical time period, whether or not it contains voices, a "song", e.g. some people would call Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture a "song". Go figure.)

Now, if we switch to encyclopedia-speak, we have a far more sophisticated hierarchy of terminology for musical compositions, where only a small proportion of works are considered songs. This is about encyclopedic integrity; nothing to do with pedantry. Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PEnnsylvania 6-5000 was originally written as an instrumental, with the title being yelled out in rhythm; those lyrics you linked to were added later. Back to the issue in question: are you REALLY considering yelling out the word "Tequila" as a filler to be an actual lyric – or are you being pedantic? Furthermore, would you call Nyan Cat a song because of this? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter when the lyrics were written?... if there are lyrics, there are lyrics.

FYI... on the specific issue of whether "Tequila" has lyrics or not (and thus whether it should be disambiguated with "song" or "instrumental"), there seems enough of a question that it should be put it up for community consensus through a formal "RM" discussion (I have requested one). If the community thinks "Tequila" has lyrics, then the article should stay at "(song)"... and if the community thinks it does not have lyrics then it should be moved to "(instrumental)" per this guideline. I do think the guideline is overly pedantic on this, but I don't object enough to challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it matters. "In the Mood" was composed by Glenn Miller as an instrumental, but I personally played with a vocal group that sang it with lyrics. How about answering the Nyan Cat question? Is that a song because of its novelty "lyrics"? How about "Caveman" from Tubular Bells or "Altered State" from Tubular Bells II? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the second movements of Symphony No. 2 (Rachmaninoff) and Symphony No. 5 (Tchaikovsky) or the third of Horn Concerto No. 4 (Mozart) or even Minuet in G major (BWV Anh. 114)...not to further mention the first movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and the overture to The Barber of Seville. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Melodia – I fail to see the connection... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I second Jack of Oz's lucid appeal for encyclopedia speak. Like, as per Wikipedia is not iTunes. MistyMorn (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Sleigh Ride is a better example. Notice the first few words of the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends entirely on how the word "instrumental" is used in context. Regardless of whether Glenn Miller wrote lyrics to "In the Mood", I would refer to it as a "song", and qualify that, if needed, as being an "instrumental". I would never differentiate, and argue that "In the Mood", being a purely "instrumental" piece, is therefore not a "song". I would call a piece of popular music "an instrumental" only if it did originally have lyrics, which were omitted in a given version or performance. Or in a different context, I would say that "an instrumental" is a type of song that has no lyrics vocal accompaniment at all, as opposed to "Tequila" or "PEnnsylvania Sixty-Five Thousand / PEnnsylvania Six-Five Oh-Oh-Oh". Milkunderwood (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this is the problem right here. "Lyrics" is the wrong determinant. The real question is whether a song includes any vocal accompaniment. And in any case, an "instrumental" is a type of "song" that either never had any vocals at all, or more usually, omits the original vocals, depending on context. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, to clarify a coming nitpick, ad lib interjections such as "yeah!" or "take it again!" are not "vocal accompaniment". Milkunderwood (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK – good, we're getting somewhere. Now: if you agree that shouting "take it again" is not considered a lyric, how come shouting "Tequila" is considered a lyric? What's the difference? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very simple: "Tequila" is not an ad lib - it was written into the song to start with, in its incarnation as recorded by The Champs. It was always "vocal accompaniment". It's part of the song. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So by that logic, had they recorded it with "take it again" in the original version and decided to shout it during live performances, would that turn it into lyrics? In that case, would you consider Count Basie's version of "April in Paris" a song because he shouts "one more time" as an instruction to recap the coda? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) We have something of a problem here with separate parallel discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Wrong title appears to be finished for now, but could be added to unless a request is posted there redirecting further discussion to:
2. this page and Songs and Instrumentals section; and at
3. Talk:Tequila (song), the specific title under discussion.

I suggest that #1 be closed and redirected, but I'm not sure whether here or at #3 is the best place to continue, but I'll assume it's here.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I need to point out that I have appeared to make precisely the opposite argument at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Recognizability poll, saying

• "titles should reflect best practices, and not be dumbed down for those who are unfamiliar with the topic. Redirects and disambiguations do all the work of guiding the unfamiliar to a wanted article. It has been argued that readers never look at article titles, and I do not believe that. Some readers may not; but for those who do, a properly formal title as established by editors familiar with the field helps to put the article into a broader context."

So I start off with the supposition that Hearfourmewesique is an editor far more "familiar with the field" than I am. However, my problem here is with the concept and understanding of the meaning of the terms instrumental and song. Hearfourmewesique takes the position that Tequila is not a "song", because there are no "sung" "lyrics" - just "shouts" of the work's title. Well, but the title is derived from those shouts, not the other way around, and they are an integral part of the composition and performance. I'm not familiar with its various covers, but I suppose it's not unlikely that a cover may have omitted those three shouts of "Tequila".

I do suggest, however, that in defining the terms "instrumental" and "song", "lyrics" should preferably be replaced with "vocal accompaniment", while clarifying that ad lib interjections do not qualify as "vocal accompaniment". Thus on this basis I would categorize "Tequila" and "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" as songs, irrespective of how either "instrumental" or "song" may be used colloquially.

The real difficulty with "Tequila", as opposed to , e.g., "PEnnsylvania 6-5000", is that a disambiguation is required to distinguish the musical work from the beverage and other uses of the name. What "Tequila (instrumental)" says to me, not being an expert in the field, is that this points not to what I think of as a "song" but rather to a purely instrumental cover of the "song" I want. Do we even have disambiguations from disambiguations?

I hope this may help clarify my position. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your "April in Paris" question, no. In a colloquial sense, which I argue against, yes, it is a "song". Milkunderwood (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And we still have an ongoing problem of continuing parallel discussion at Talk:Tequila (song). Milkunderwood (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A little comic relief for y'all. As for the dab issue, it can be called "song" on a dab page but redirect to "instrumental". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a final comment on PEnnsylvania 6-5000... we don't even have an article on that song/instrumental/musical work. What we have is an article on the phone number that the song is about, with a section that mentions the song. I don't have a problem with that... I just wanted to explain why there is no disambiguation (and thus no debate over whether it is a song or an instrumental). Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTE... I started this thread in order to find out what the intent behind the provision was... not to debate the provision or open a second thread about Tequila. I think my question has been answered (apparently the intent was to make a pedantic point). We do not need parallel discussions. We now have a formal move request on the talk page of the article to deal with the specific issues of Tequila (song) vs. Tequila (instrumental). I suggest we end this discussion, and the one at WP:AT... and continue to talk about the specific case at the move discussion. Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And where, then, do we talk about whether we need to make this distinction between songs and instrumentals at all? Powers ^T 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Right here, "Tequila" serves as a fine example to that and we should deal with the specific as well as with the broad. Unfortunately, no one wants to be musically educated, as most comments read something along the lines of "everyone calls them songs, so we should too". I'm slowly running out of air, as I forgot (again) that very few editors apply WP:COMMON SENSE. Why don't you rename all music articles to "songs"? Das how dem folks know it y'all! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If that's your idea of a discussion, count me out. Mocking your fellow editors is not productive. Powers ^T 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mocking any editor, I'm mocking the mindset that encourages promoting false knowledge based solely on popularity. Is there anything wrong with that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

re: where, then, do we talk about whether we need to make this distinction between songs and instrumentals at all?

Ah... that is a different issue. If you wish to question and change what the current convention says, then this is the place to hold that discussion. As I said MY intent was not to challenge the convention, but simply to have it clarified. Carry on. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose disambiguation by songwriter, not artist

"Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist releases multiple albums with the same name." Many, probably most, songs have been recorded more than once. Inviting disambiguation by artist is to invite POV as to which performance is to be considered definitive/most popular. Artists own no rights to a song, only to their recording of it. On the other hand, the composer of a song retains rights for his/her lifetime (and the estate retains them for some years beyond that), and this avoids POV.

If someone composes another song called With a little help from my friends, which becomes a huge international hit such that it eclipses the version we all know, what disambiguation would the Lennon/McCartney ditty have. The Beatles' version only reached 63 in the charts (as a double A side), to my generation the Joe Cocker version is definitive, but two other versions have reached number one in the UK. The only NPOV version would not be With a little help from my friends (Beatles song), or With a little help from my friends (Joe Cocker song), or With a little help from my friends (Wet Wet Wet song) or With a little help from my friends (Sam & Mark song): it could only be With a little help from my friends (Lennon-McCartney song). Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Wheel of Fortune (song)#Requested move -- should it use the year, the artist, or the songwriters? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If a song writer's name is not well-known in public, and artist's name is not well-known, how about a year? --George Ho (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's good to have concise disambiguators whenever possible, and when there's no single performer closely associated with the song I think it's best to go with the year. For example, I find Yesterdays (1933 song) a lot better than the former title Yesterdays (Otto Harbach and Jerome Kern song). Apart from being more concise, it also doesn't confuse the reader as to whether the person in the parentheses is the songwriter, performer or both. Jafeluv (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If we standardize on composer, it would obviate the doubt about which is listed. Also, re transition, rarely (if ever?) would confusion arise as from the same person having written one song and notably performed another of the same name. Disambiguating by songwriter is a simpler and stabler regime, as stated in the proposal, and appealing for that reason. It also avoids dealing with a new artist's performance eclipsing an established one's in notability, and the naming dispute that would follow if based on performer. Further disambiguation, as on a dab page or in an article, can employ information like year and notable performers. I appreciate the value of concision, but on balance I go with composer. ENeville (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that many songs are simply much more associated with an artist than with a songwriter. For example, if Thriller was to be disambiguated further, a reader would much readily recognize "Thriller (Michael Jackson song)" than "Thriller (Rod Temperton song)". A casual reader is simply not aware of the composer of a song in many cases, and the name of the performer is more likely to help them figure out which of the similarly named songs they are looking for. Furthermore, many songs have more than one songwriter (the most usual case is having a separate composer and lyricist), which would make disambiguated titles unnecessarily long. "Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath song)" is a recognizable and relatively concise title, and I don't think we would want to change that to, say, "Heaven and Hell (Ronnie James Dio, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward song)". Similarly, "No Other Love (1953 song)" is preferable to both "No Other Love (Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II song)" and the slightly shorter "No Other Love (Rodgers and Hammerstein song)". Jafeluv (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of bands with shared names

The guideline suggests using nationality to disambiguate bands with shared names, but what should happen when there are two bands with the same name and of the same nationality? The ongoing requested-move discussion for Blue (group) is the specific instance that prompted my question. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

'Musical scale' vs. 'Scale (music)'

See discussion at Talk:Musical scale#Proposing "Scale (music)". Hyacinth (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion

A discussion regarding the correct implementation of the guidelines for the disambiguation of bands, albums and songs is currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnote for song titles. All contributions and informed opinions welcome.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I thought of the request for this merger when I noticed that an editor had linked the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming in Template:Naming conventions. The standard usage of this template is to link to non-WikiProject pages in the Wikipedia namespace for naming convention guidelines. Essentially, the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming state all the information regarding albums types that are not listed on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music); in fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) currently only includes mentioning of modern-day albums in the opening sentence, and then is not mentioned ever again throughout the entire page.

...And that is why I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Naming be merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). The information in the WikiProject could only expand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) due to its lack of wording. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Delete the section on capitalization. Our job is to report the name of a band or song, not create it. Normal capitalization rules apply, there is nothing special about song names or band names that calls for a section on capitalization. Apteva (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)