Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blueboar (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 4 February 2012 (→‎Songs and Instrumentals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Self-selection bias?

I expect I'm going to get myself in all sorts of trouble for coming out with this, but Dohn Joe's lucid exposition above encourages me to address my reticence: I suspect that the perceived need for the project to maximise consistency in its article titling is related to our collective background. Much more than in an area like poetry, for example, the vast numbers of untitled genre pieces present in classical music (sonatas, concertos etc etc) demand to be numbered and catalogued in consistent ways. As a group, we're all familiar with some of the issues. IMO, this familiarity encourages us, as a group, to depart from normal WP naming conventions in the illusory belief that, in our field, article title consistency is somehow more important than across the rest of Wikipedia, where consistent formal naming is implemented primarily in the opening of the lede (and in some cases in infoboxes). I realise it could be argued that similar sorts of bias potentially exist in, say, the biological sciences. How do we differ? Well, I suppose titling the Oak as Quercus rather invites trouble, whereas many of of our 'common name' options have an apparently more acceptable alternative in the form of 'genre + number' (eg Sonata No.14). Dare I say it? Just my 2 cents MistyMorn (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Note: As I originally explained below, my specific concern here stemmed from the general axiom that guideline debates require input from both 'experts' and from stakeholders who are educated 'non-experts'. Specifically, I felt input from potential readers of the articles ('consumers') was needed, and this was just not happening. If, for one reason or another—such as the self-selection bias which was silently operating here—the discussion ends up being dominated by the experts, then relevant viewpoints get submerged. In this case, there seemed to be relatively little concern among most discussants for the 'recognizability' and 'naturalness' criteria, which often have to compete with 'precision' and 'consistency'. In other words WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES were being trumped by understandable local concerns regarding cataloging (it's also possible that one of the editors leading the discussion, namely Kleinzach, simply doesn't like WP:COMMONNAME or has more general concerns about it, but that wasn't actually my point). I felt this issue was a problem, albeit not an earth-shattering one... MistyMorn (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Quercus — and this is relevant to us as well — there are about 600 different types (from Quercus alba to Quercus xalapensis). Giving them scientific names helps identification because genuinely common names don't exist. (For example Quercus tardifolia is the 'Chisos Mountains Oak', but this is not a 'common name' for those of us who don't live in the Chisos Mountains.) So this is another parallel case where precision is really important. --Kleinzach 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But we also have Oak. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing the importance of precision. I just don't think the best place for that precision is invariably in the title. MistyMorn (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia:NAMINGCRITERIA gives 'conciseness' as well as 'precision' as criteria. So there is balance. (The other editors implicitly rejected my original 'Paragaraph 3' on that basis.) Also — as I've said below — I do prefer Oak for the genus. --Kleinzach 00:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out here that occasionally specialist editors do argue for exclusively using scientific/binomial names for all species, or at least all species of a large category: see here. Quite remarkable! This is the selection bias MistyMorn is talking about, I think. If I may illustrate using an analogy: cane toad : Moonlight Sonata :: Bufo marinus : Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out earlier, 'piano sonata' is a common name, used in all RS, so that analogy doesn't apply here. Bufo marinus on the other hand is a scientific name only used in specialist literature. --Kleinzach 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the distinction between a common name (cane toad) as opposed to a nickname (Moonlight Sonata). Milkunderwood (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KZ: The binomials are used in nonspecialist literature, from time to time. Milk: "common name" as defined at our policy on article titles means the name commonly used in reliable sources, not something that is necessarily different from a "nickname". These distinctions are quite forced, in any case—the point I'm making here is that specialist editors do things that are quite strange to the common folk. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME — which you pipe to article titles — is simply not defined as I've pointed out elsewhere. --Kleinzach 09:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! I misspoke, I guess—it doesn't seem very important, though. The policy itself is pretty clear: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title...." That's all anyone is saying when they refer to the COMMONNAME policy, I think. So Milkunderwood, to be more precise I should have said: our policies suggest titling with the name prevalent in reliable English sources, no matter if that name is a nickname or not. The Bill Clinton example on that policy makes it clear that the longstanding community-wide consensus process that came up with that policy intended even nicknames to be used when they are the most common name for a subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:OFFICIALNAMES was that WP:COMMONNAME exerts a certain precedence over criteria such as 'precision' and 'consistency': [Official names] should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. Which seems to be rather the opposite of the local consensus over here. I notice that at the Village Pump Kleinzach has questioned here whether WP:COMMONNAME is "fit for purpose or just a source of disagreements" and requested suggestions for improvements to the COMMONNAME policy. Right now, there don't seem to be any response to the query (though that doesn't necessarily mean that "no-one is listening"). MistyMorn (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listening, and I agree with Kleinzach 100%. But then I'm the outlier here, because I think WP:UCN ought to be entirely discarded. At Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Recognizability wording Poll/RFC Kotniski suggested at one point
  • A name is selected by which the subject is commonly referred to in reliable English-language sources, thus ensuring recognizability to general readers who are familiar with the subject, while also indicating how the subject is likely to be referred to in an encyclopedic [tone] (such as within Wikipedia articles). However, when there are several more or less equally recognizable names available, it is not obligatory to choose the commonest name – the choice may also take account of other factors, such as the criteria listed..." ... "the type - level - of language that would be expected in a serious reference work. Nothing too slangy, journalese-y, etc.
This comes close to what I believe, but doesn't go nearly far enough. I keep wondering whether Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a serious encyclopedia, or is it playing at being a dumbed-down comic book? We need tons of redirects, and every article should incorporate common names in the lede, not in the title. Wikipedia is unique as a serious reference source precisely because, unlike any print publication, we have the facility to guide the reader immediately to the wanted article, regardless of the search term entered, "common" or not, and whether here in the WP searchbox, or at Google. But as I've said, I'm not running this show. Amazingly, to me, people have actually said they do not want to be "educated" by Wikipedia. Then what exactly are we here for? Milkunderwood (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the question in hand (behind the selection-bias issue) was whether WP:MUSICSERIES is or is not in harmony with current Wikipedia naming conventions, including COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIALNAMES). I still suspect it isn't. MistyMorn (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I was in 5 or 6 edit conflicts with you trying to post my response to Dohn joe, but that response also might pertain here. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicts are an annoyance, I agree. But I can't see how your recent posts address my self-selection bias concern, which I believe is pertinent and deserves consideration. Btw, in a way I hate raising these issues because I have absolutely no desire to contrast the good work of Kleinzach and others. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't complaining. Nor addressing your question of self-selection bias. I just thought that my post above, which you have since answered, and again I to you, might be pertinent in this context. It's clear that we hold different concepts of what an encyclopedia is and/or should be, and I think it's clear that no one is going to change anyone else's mind on this. I prefer more formal titles, and as many redirects as may be feasible. You and Dohn joe, and many others, obviously disagree. May we still be friends, or have I burnt too many bridges behind me? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely nothing personal: No bridge burnt! I'm just trying to protect the content of my posts from being dismissed or side-tracked. That's all. As regards our different conceptions of what an encyclopaedia should and should not be: I don't think this "Classical music Naming conventions" Talk page could be an appropriate forum to challenge the overall approach of Wikipedia. If you wanted to test such matters informally, you might like to try exploring the Village Pump, though I'm not able to advise you exactly how. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am concerned that MistyMorn is developing a thesis here that we are proposing something that contradicts WP guidelines: "As a group, we're all familiar with some of the issues. IMO, this familiarity encourages us, as a group, to depart from normal WP naming conventions in the illusory belief that, in our field, article title consistency is somehow more important than across the rest of Wikipedia". I don't accept this. On the contrary both Michael Bednarek and I have indicated above that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA does cover cases such as those we are discussing. It expressly states that the 5 criteria cannot be applied equally in all titling decisions. --Kleinzach 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section of WP:Article titles directly applicable to the situation here: Explicit conventions. It says in its entirety:
"Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia."
So Misty Morn is exactly right in suggesting that prohibiting common names is against usual WP practice. As far as I know, this would the only guideline to do so. As I said earlier, even the more formalistic guidelines mentioned in Explicit conventions allow for exceptions. (If you don't like Oak, how about Live oak - a particular species - for an example of precision?) Dohn joe (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The passage you have quoted is not really relevant here, because it relates to technical or scientific terms that (quote) "are not strictly the common name" (unquote). Note that (1) in music we have series of works where only a few, out of many, have nicknames, (2) nicknames are not the same thing as 'common names', (3) 'Piano concerto' etc. are in fact 'common' names. That's what we call the things in English.
Regarding the tree, I do think Oak is better than Quercus. (Common sense applies here). I see both Live oak and Quercus virginiana both have articles. I'm much more likely to access the latter, since I don't live in the SW of the United States. (Live oak is an example of an uncommon common name.) --Kleinzach 00:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be dense, but how is a passage on explicit naming conventions not applicable to a discussion about an explicit naming convention? Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Kelinzach's three numbered points, I agree that 'concerto' and 'sonata', for example, can be and often are common names. However, in cases such as Beethoven's Piano Concerto No.5 or Sonata No.14, I would suggest the common names aren't complete without their nicknames, however inappropriate or anachronistic. And, for better or worse, certain nicknamed works (though by no means all) do tend to garner more than their fair share of popularity. In the particular case of Dvorak's Symphony 'From the New World', Symphony No.9 would not the most obvious common name for somebody of my father's generation. But I'm certainly not complaining—hey, I can live with any of this! WP is bigger... Basically, I agree with Jack of Oz and others that the titling is all quite relative, as implied by the presence of four potentially competing criteria in the WP Naming conventions which editors have to weigh up when trying to arrive at a sensible name for an article. On the other hand, I also suggest it would be preferable for us not to tie ourselves to too rigid a set of rules/conventions. I'm sorry if I appear overly concerned about this point (to take up Jack's sage remarks above). I've used and doubtless abused the word 'concern' rather a lot, intending it in the usage commonly found in peer reviews in reference to issues which one believes needs to be addressed or clarified. In that sense, I do have substantial concerns. I ask your collective indulgence to be allowed to take my reasoning about possible group bias to its conclusion. All my points are intended constructively, and I've threatened nothing worse than a non-hostile abstention (oh, and while we're at it, I also promise to cut down on those 3-letter words which Kleinzach understandably deprecates). Thank you for the patience... or otherwise, MistyMorn (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. "the common names aren't complete without their nicknames" Fair enough. I originally addressed this in my 'Paragraph 3' (Nicknames may be added to the formal title if they are universally established as names for the compositions, but they should not normally be used by themselves, in isolation. . . .) However there was a strong consensus against including this, and it would have been incompatible with the 'conciseness' criteria. So presumably this can't be included now. --Kleinzach 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... Though your reply rather passes over my point here that the consensus for avoiding nicknames in titles was reached by a self-selected group which may have particular collective blind spots related to its special character. Is the sudden request/consensus for closure, I wonder, somehow intended to stave off soliciting of outside opinions in specific WP terms? If so, I can appreciate the reasons for that. My suggestion below was actually rather different from any of the four ways of soliciting outside opinions listed on the Consensus page: it was loosely drawn from a basic principle commonly applied in far more complex and challenging settings (eg [1] "Based on logical arguments and the experience of other organisations we recommend ... Groups that develop guidelines or recommendations should be broadly composed and include important stakeholders such as consumers, [etc] ..."). I can't believe I'm the first to raise this sort of group composition bias issue on Wikipedia, and maybe WP deliberately prefers just to leave groups/projects to sort things out for themselves within the bounds of overall WP process. In that case, I'm doubtless raising the issue in an inappropriate forum (as I suggested elsewhere to MilkUnderwood), and of course I'm only too happy to learn. But I do feel my point/suggestion deserves some sort of considered response before the discussion is finally closed. Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the concept of 'a self-selected group' given that we are all volunteers here. Our participants are all people who are interested in the subject being discussed. Is that what 'self-selection' means? The reason for having this discussion here on a 'central' guideline page was to broaden out a conversation that was previously only happening on obscure pages such Talk:Moonlight Sonata and Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven). We may not have picked up any new editors here, but we have made the conversation more accessible. --Kleinzach 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes... Incidentally, I seem to be subject to a somewhat similar bias: "self-selected group" is a methodological concept which has become so familiar to me that I sometimes forget that it can seem gibberish to others (a bit like Waltz, Op whatever it was, No.1?). Ours is actually a good example of a self-selecting group, as we all volunteer ('select') ourselves. I'm beginning to see why the issue I raised is drawing something of a blank here. Interesting... MistyMorn (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that having a centralized discussion has been a good thing, I disagree that having it here in its current form has made for a "broader" conversation. The requested move at Moonlight Sonata was advertised to a general audience at WP:Requested moves, which brought in contributors who had no clue that this naming convention page existed (myself included). Overall, the Moonlight Sonata page is much less obscure than this one. If you go to this page, you can track page views of this page and the sonata page (under both titles). You'll see that the sonata page had around 700,000 total views over the last two years, or about 900 a day. This convention page, on the other hand, had about 7,000 views, or about 10 views per day. So this is actually the obscure venue - and as MistyMorn noted, completely populated with music buffs. A better way to get broader participation on WP-wide issues is to advertise it elsewhere - WP:Request for comment or WP:Village Pump, for example. Dohn joe (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that, despite the excellent intentions, the discussion here has been largely restricted to classical music 'insiders'. I have no doubt that this sort of decision-making really does call for complementary input from other likely readers ('consumers'), preferably with a consolidated knowledge of WP rationales and process. Numbers wouldn't be an issue here. Indeed, a handful of individuals who have a broad understanding of Wikipedia and its processes might be more helpful than a busload more interested in giving their personal views on the music or WP. That's why I suggested contacting some experienced Wikipedians individually rather than advertising (I can understand the reluctance of MilkUnderwood and maybe others to do this). As far as I can see, WP doesn't actively seem to encourage this sort of step, though I don't see any reason in principle why one shouldn't just go ahead and do it. In fact, I rather wonder whether there isn't somewhere a group of experienced, laid back editors who are happy to volunteer for this sort of task. I can think of worse jobs... MistyMorn (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVAS applies here. It's OK if editors participate of their own free will out of interest in the subject, but persuading otherwise uninterested editors to take part in order to arrive at a different result would be completely against WP policies. --Kleinzach 23:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a note outlining the issues and requesting input at WT:MOS or WT:AT or another appropriate "core" guideline talk page is probably the best way to do this without being in any danger of canvassing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Wikipedia has a Feedback service incorporating a randomized selection procedure, which includes a section for policies and guidelines. But I don't know whether such a request would be appropriate in this case. (I've been circumspect about the possibility of taking the question beyond this page, simply because of my limited experience with WP practices.) MistyMorn (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now got bold and made requests at WT:MOS and WT:AT. MistyMorn (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between notifying people at another page (the obvious ones to use would be Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)) and starting new discussions on multiple pages, which is Forum shopping. --Kleinzach 04:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't forum shopping. It's very, very routine to post pointers to relevant discussions at pages like WT:MOS, which is precisely what MistyMorn did, pointing to this page, not starting a new discussion at MOS (someone did respond there and later strike-through their response, apparently not at first noticing that MistyMorn was pointing people here). The pointer could have been more neutral, which could be seen as a mild WP:CANVAS issue (however, the requests did not ask for support for or opposition to the wording, but rather for informed editor participation, so even a canvassing claim would be a stretch). Mis-citing guidelines like WP:FORUMSHOP smacks of WP:LAWYER and just clouds the debate. PS: There wasn't anything at all not "obvious" about notifying WT:MOS and WT:AT, since this is an article titling issue, and MOS's principal concerns are common sense and consistency in styling, including titles of works, making this discussion of direct relevance to both of the notified talk pages. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the group:

To come back to my original point about a group-related bias:

Let's look at it another way, from the perspective of members of the general public who are not particularly interested in cataloguing concerns. Maybe someone who just wants to find out a little bit more about a piece of music they've just heard on the radio. Someone for whom 'Minute Waltz' would bring a smile of recognition, but 'Waltz Op.64 no.1 (Chopin)' would draw a blank. There's almost a caricature of the classical music buff who likes to treat the public to the insiders' code of opus numbers rather using than the common names which people tend to understand. Many people find that an annoyance: not good for our beloved music, which is already a mystery (when not an excuse for derision) to many. I think WP:COMMONNAME protects us from inadvertently going down that sort of route in our titling.
(Disclaimer: Obviously, I'm not claiming that opus numbers have no place in sensible titles.) MistyMorn (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK, so here goes with my final pitch [soft funereal drum rolls and laughter off]:
We're editing for everyone ranging from the classical music buff to the vaguely curious, but our group mainly comprises the former. How to overcome this limitation? Suggest to bring in the views of some informed outside stakeholders. In this case, some smart users with no particular axe to grind who are blessed with a good working knowledge of WP and its ways, but who aren't classical music insiders. Just invite a few in to give an independent but informed view of the proposals, their implications, and any unintended effects that they may foresee. That's all folks! My last 2 cents. Oh, and thanks for all the fish, MistyMorn (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a very good idea, as long as we don't end up in another ruckus with what Ravpapa has referred to as "the Pink Floyd crowd" (or something to that effect). I think your careful description of who to invite is crucial. But first, let's follow Kleinzach's suggestion and close the discussion for now. Then we can easily return to it. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for highlighting that: my suggestion was indeed to extend individual invitations to a few experienced Wikipedians. I'm somewhat perplexed by the sudden need for "closure". But if tha... MistyMorn (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my post above, "this might be a very good idea", I was already having unarticulated second thoughts even before saving the post to the board. I definitely understand MistyMorn's concern regarding self-selection bias amongst persons with interest in and some knowledge of the "ghetto" of classical music (and it is unquestionably a ghetto - I used to work in a "record store" back when there was such a thing). But first, I wondered how anyone could sieve through to find such editors as described; and then, the plan falls apart in any case, because these discussions do not take place in a walled-off ghetto - anyone can "invite" anyone else to participate, and quickly enough the whole thing devolves into the same kind of useless ruckus we had before. In theory, possibly a good idea, but totally impracticable here. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you won't have to put up with me joining in, anyway!. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that anyone who has posted here in this discussion has ever felt they were "putting up" with you. Nearly everyone joining in has disagreed with nearly everyone else on at least some minor point. Speaking for myself, while I have disagreed with some of your positions, I have always appreciated your thoughtful comments and analysis; and I always look forward to reading your perspective on any music issues. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For the record, as someone with exposure to and familiarity with classical music, but very little formal catalog familiarity, I would be extremely disappointed to find common names explicitly prohibited as article titles. Those who advocate strict adherence to formal titles cite those many works that share their common names with other pieces, which is of course a legitimate concern. But there are a small but not trivial number of pieces which have common names that are nearly universally known, no matter how inaccurate they may be, nor how much the composer hated the common name. The Minute Waltz and the Moonlight Sonata are amongst these pieces, and adhering blindly to a strict formal-name rule in no way serves our readership. Powers T 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated from the move discussion Moonlight vs. Sonata No. 14: "For me, St Matthew Passion is a good common name for the (long and Latin) Passio Domini Nostri J.C. Secundum Evangelistam Matthaeum, and Great Mass in C minor is a good common name for the nameless Missa in c because is shows that this Mass by Mozart is different from all his others, but Moonlight Sonata is a nickname". Please consider the sections Facts and History there, also "The name" in the article, and about the "Minute Waltz" compare: "This is not only a nickname (as opposed to being a "common name"), but a misleading name at best. Chopin named it "Little Dog Waltz". It was renamed by his publisher as "Small (my-nyoot) Waltz"). It never had anything to do with being a "minute (minnit)" long." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my personal view: Beethoven's music never had anything to do with moonlight, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, Gerda explains this well. We have to distinguish 'common names' from nicknames. Common names can be precise, whereas nicknames ('The Emperor', 'Unfinished', 'The Trout', 'Apassionata' etc.) will rarely be so. --Kleinzach 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a terminology issue here, but let me ask: How is "Trout Quintet" imprecise? Does it not identify the intended piece precisely? In fact, more precisely than "Piano Quintet in A"? (There are several of those, of course.) There may be other issues with "nicknames", but precision is not one. Dohn joe (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You all seem to be using a different definition of "common name" from the rest of the encyclopedia. There's no reason a nickname cannot be the common name (vis WP:COMMONNAME) of a work. Chopin's waltz is known to the English-speaking world as the "Minute Waltz", however inaccurate the translation and subsequent pronunciation may be. Beethoven's sonata is known as the Moonlight Sonata, no matter how irrelevant the title is to the content. It is at those titles that readers will expect to find their articles. Powers T 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think of the 'Moonlight Sonata' as Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, so we can't say that it's universally known by the nickname. (It's likely that while many people are familiar with the 'Moonlight Sonata', they wouldn't be able to identify it as a piano piece by Beethoven). In practice, redirects solve any problem. For example, if you search for 'Apassionata wiki' on Google, Piano Sonata No. 23 (Beethoven) will be the top result. As you are new to this discussion, I should explain that the original proposal included an extra paragraph allowing for the nickname to be added to titles (e.g. Symphony No. 8, Unfinished (Schubert)) but this was rejected. --Kleinzach 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument against yourself, Kleinzach. "It's likely that while many people are familiar with the 'Moonlight Sonata', they wouldn't be able to identify it as a piano piece by Beethoven." So when someone does a google search for "moonlight sonata", and the top result is Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), the search and the article title don't match up - and that person might not know that they've got the right article. Same with the Appassionata, and the rest. We should be making it as easy as possible to help people find the article they're looking for, don't you think? We can't educate people if they can't find the right article. Dohn joe (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree. In the whole history of publishing we've never had a reference work so easy to navigate as Wikipedia. --Kleinzach 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But why not make it even easier if we can? What do you say about the situation where the likeliest search term does not match up with the article title? Couldn't that be confusing? And couldn't we address that fairly easily much of the time? Dohn joe (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have to start Likeliest-Search-Term-pedia. (The anti-copywriter's encyclopaedia?) There could also be a 'likeliest to who' issue, involving title by title scrutiny and discussion. --Kleinzach 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the situation where the likeliest search term does not match up with the article title? Couldn't that be confusing?" - just the opposite. In my own experience, a search term that I enter into the searchbox rarely matches any article title exactly, whether on classical music or any other conceivable topic. Nearly every time, a redirect has anticipated what I want, and immediately takes me to the exact page I was looking for. (Earlier here I created some dismay with my example of Engine Charlie Wilson. Then I in turn was dismayed to come up empty-handed when looking for Cardinal Stritch - how was I supposed to know his first name was "Samuel" if there's no redirect? Now I know the correct name of Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense; and after some rummaging around in lieu of there being a redirect, I can read about Samuel Cardinal Stritch.)
I have no way of knowing, but I would guess that my overall experience in finding the appropriate wanted article in Wikipedia is probably not that extraordinary, and is probably similar to that of most readers, most of the time. Redirects do all the work. The only conceivable "confusion" occurs when an article is missing the likeliest redirects. No musician writing an article about Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14 is going to overlook creating a redirect from "Moonlight Sonata" - or even if so, it won't remain overlooked for long. Nor had that redirect ever been overlooked when the article still had its proper title prior to last September, as it had for many years, creating no confusion whatsoever. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ease of navigation doesn't seem to me to be the issue. Try googling "New World Symphony": On google.co.uk, at least, the Wikipedia entry comes up top with the "Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák)" title and "New World Symphony" below it in bold, twice. So the visual effect on Google is rather similar to when you arrive at the article via Wikipedia. In this case (and I guess in other similar ones), the titling doesn't seem to have a significant effect on searchability or SEO. My 2c MistyMorn (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In practice, redirects solve any problem." I keep seeing this asserted, but there's no basis for it. If redirects were the solution to all of our article naming problems, we would (as someone stated earlier) just title every article with a sequential database number and use redirects to account for links and search terms. But simply finding a unique identifier is not the only purpose we must consider in choosing the title of an article. Wikipedia:Article titles lays out five criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Using the well-known "nickname" of a classical piece as the article title (where it's unique enough) satisfies at least three and maybe four of those five criteria. Only the Consistency criterion is better served by a style-and-number format, and while consistency is important, it is only one of five important criteria. Powers T 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that there is strong consensus among many of the editors here that to prioritise quite heavily the WP's 'consistency' criterion for titles. I suspect that this local consensus could in part be a reflection of those editors' longstanding interest in cataloguing issues. Since I remain unconvinced that the emphasis on 'consistency' is strictly necessary, and I felt concerned that the approach may lead to a) unnecessarily intimidating titles of popular articles and b) a perceived departure (or distancing) of the project from usual WP practice, I suggested asking for outside opinions from some experienced Wikipedians like yourself (incidentally, I've also just stumbled upon this list of volunteers who can be invited randomly). Can I ask you a completely neutral question: do you think that the emphasis on 'consistency' is indeed in keeping with WP naming conventions?
I think we've already discussed this question in the fullest possible way. You don't want us to go through it all over again do you? I really don't have anything to add to what I have already said about consistency and the other criteria. --Kleinzach 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to come up with a hard-and-fast rule. It can be valuable to emphasize consistency, for example, when it helps people find and link the articles they want to find and link. This is, for example, the case with U.S. placenames, where we nearly always append the state; it's helpful because (aside from a few well-known examples) the average reader or editor can't be sure if a placename without a state appended is ambiguous or not. In this case, however, due to the relatively esoteric nature of the naming convention for classical music, adhering strictly to it is not helpful to the reader where other titles are available. Certainly, the vast majority of works must be titled conventionally, but it insisting on strict consistency in all such titles strikes me as unnecessarily pedantic. Powers T 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As several editors have repeatedly noted, we have been at pains to avoid 'strict consistency'. I'd recommend re-reading the whole debate and also looking at some print encyclopedias in oder to understand the (multiple) issues involved in this. --Kleinzach 00:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The length of "the whole debate" is prohibitive, but I did try to familiarize myself with the issues at hand. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think I'm missing. If this avoidance of strict consistency allows a title like Moonlight Sonata, then I have no complaints; if not, however, then I'm not clear on exactly what consistency is being avoided. Powers T 15:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any more informed views from 'outside the group'?

What group? Participants here are all Wikipedia editors interested in music naming conventions. --Kleinzach 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's exactly MistyMorn's point - the participants here are all interested in music naming conventions, as opposed to WP-wide naming conventions. The concern is that by developing a convention that makes sense solely to us, the interests of the general-audience readers might fall prey to a "cul-de-sac" mentality. There are Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time and thought on WP-wide issues (LtPowers being one of them), with consistency throughout the encyclopedia being the goal. Asking for "outside" opinions helps make sure that classical music doesn't become a WP cul-de-sac. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does make sense — providing new participants take the time to read past debates and familiarise themselves with the issues. Coming to a discussion with pre-conceived ideas and an unwillingness to listen will not achieve anything except to drive contributing editors away. WP is blighted by top-down bureaucracy. Coal-face, article writing editors are fed up with continual interference from metapedians demanding compliance with superficial, generalised rules applied out of context. --Kleinzach 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to several points: Yes, Dohn joe summarizes my concerns exactly, which stemmed from the observation that these changes strongly prioritise 'consistency' over other competing criteria. I think LtPowers's considered and carefully calibrated comments confirm that there is, potentially at least, an issue here. I know next to nothing about what metapedians do, but I can imagine there is a strong rationale for their existence. As regards "top-down bureaucracy", I guess that sort of concern might be raised by some to question the naming conventions by this WP Project. At the same time, I do realise that the people responsible for drafting these conventions do, as a group, represent the experts who create or help create on Wikipedia much of the high quality content in the field—clearly, their viewpoint deserves great respect. So I'm basically 'agnostic' about these changes, as I can see that there are multiple, competing issues. I felt that it may be worth exploring some of those competing issues to help us have a better idea of where we stand as a WP Project. I believe the discussion I started in this section is in the spirit of Wikipedia. My apologies to everyone concerned if I haven't been able to express my points as simply and efficiently as I would have liked. MistyMorn (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting due to request at WT:AT... I am not going to tell you what your project's naming conventions should be... but I will tell you that sooner or later you are going to have situations where the best title for an article on a particular piece of music will not fit the conventions. You are going to have to make exceptions. This is true of every naming convention on Wikipedia. Now, if you think of naming conventions as "A Statement Of The Rules -which must be followed" such exceptions are going to cause lots of angst and debate. If on the other hand, you think of naming conventions as "A Statement of Advice - which we strongly recommend but do not insist on", then such exceptions are not a big deal. Please take this into account when you write your conventions. And if you can work in some language that explicitly allows for exceptions, so much the better. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which naming convention are you referring to? Perhaps there's a misunderstanding? WP:MUSICSERIES specifically explains that there is no one way of titling articles about musical series. It mentions three different methods and allows for "some other well-established method" , this in turn is qualified by a reference to "current scholarly practice". --Kleinzach 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the spirit of the convention is to prohibit commonly-used names such as Moonlight Sonata when they occur within an otherwise consistently-named series, correct? Wasn't that move request the impetus for drafting WP:MUSICSERIES? Dohn joe (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a godawful page to try to navigate, even for people who have been trying to keep track of it for the past month, much less others coming to it afresh. There are multiple concurrent and overlapping discussions all over this page.
My understanding of WP:MUSICSERIES is that the wording was intended to clarify what had been a longstanding guideline for classical music that had previously not been specifically stated as such. And of course the "move request" referred to was actually a "move back to the way it had always been" request. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple lines inserted in this discussion topic etc

(lines subsequently removed)

Why do we have all these lines inserted in this topics? Is this something adopted from chat rooms? Usually when we talk on WP we use indent to show the flow of the conversation. The line breaks make it difficult to understand. What do the sections mean? I'm beginning to think this talk page is being used for some kind of social experiment, which would be contrary to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been confused by the multiple line break additions. Don't know what you mean by "social experiment", though.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "all these lines inserted in this topics?" ? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've been removed now. Nothing to do with any "social experiment" I put them there to try to provide a few informal make the wide-ranging discussion a bit easier to follow (and because I started this particular section to try to explore a specific WP-related concern). My apologies for causing confusion and inadvertently transgressing usual WP practice/rules. MistyMorn (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to defend myself in a more detailed way against the insinuation that I may have been doing something contrary to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? When I see these more or less polite WP shootouts (and this one seemed polite, informed and consistently good-faith) I find the situation somewhat depressing, especially if I let myself get involved... Despite much informed and sometimes informative debate, one frequently sees two sides largely sticking to their original positions and not 'hearing' each another. It's as if they don't know—or sometimes don't want to know—where the other side is 'coming from'. Situations can also degenerate into OK Corral, as seems to be happening right now over at the 'Moonlight'. If both parties are adequately informed, as I think they were on this page, it's reasonable to ask what lies behind the stand-off. Just a difference of opinion, or something more? Even before joining the discussion, it seemed unsurprising to me that dedicated classical musical editors who either have a direct interest in cataloguing concerns or at least are used to dealing with catalogue numbers on a daily basis would be more likely to favour formal consistency. On the other hand, one might expect informed 'generalists' to be more likely to take a different view, arguably more in keeping with usual Wikipedia article titling. So it was scarcely surprising to see the two sides interpreting the WP naming conventions differently, in support of their own view. Nor to see the consistency party winning hands down on numbers, citing their expert opinion credentials as a reason for knowing better and getting the answer right (and perhaps continuing to insist they must be right because they are the experts, and so they can't possibly be anything but right, etc...). But my professional background informs me that while expert opinion is extremely valuable, it may not always tell the whole story. That's why I plucked up the courage to raise the methodological issue of a self-selection bias. Because I thought it might be useful to shed light on one of the reasons for the mutual deafness. If this small initiative qualifies as a "social experiment", then I feel it is one done in good-faith and in the interests of Wikipedia. Certainly nothing contrary to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia! MistyMorn (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MistyMorn - don't get down on yourself! You've been a consistently thoughtful, perceptive voice in this series of discussions. And you're completely correct on the tendencies of "experts" vs. "generalists" in this case, as well as the problem of talking past each other. How do we get ourselves to listen - and hear - one another...? Dohn joe (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's what I was trying to say. MistyMorn (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody wants to be heard, but we needed to choose the right venue. Editors get tired by lengthy off topic discussions. MistyMorn and Dohn joe, I recommend taking your ideas to a more general forum such as one of the Village pumps. --Kleinzach 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how either Dohn joe's or my own comments were off topic. MistyMorn (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is Naming conventions (music). Your discussion is about (to quote you) "the methodological issue of a self-selection bias" which — if it is an issue at all — is a general one not confined to one obscure technical music page. In any case, why raise it here when no-one is listening? --Kleinzach 09:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's entirely appropriate to have a meta-discussion here about how debates should be conducted here, and especially how the local consensus in the above discussion should interact with policies such as the one about common names. I hope we can all listen to each other! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At least I now know the reasoning behind the claim that the section was off topic. All my points addressed the question in hand. MistyMorn (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further: Since the proposal has now been approved by "consensus", I too find myself asking Consensus, which consensus? Consensus among the 'experts'? Or a broader consensus among both 'experts' and 'educated laymen' who have listened carefully to the points put forward by the experts? The latter would appear more doubtful. Given the substantial methodological concern of distortion due to a self-selection bias, I believe that the option of making a request for independent expert WP feedback may help spare us future grief. MistyMorn (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no grief here. The problems were resolved, and everybody has gone home. --Kleinzach 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the local consensus problem MistyMorn brings up here has been resolved, no. Everyone might have gone home, but the next time this is tested, say an RM for Eine kleine Nachtmusik -> Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart) or whatever, and the new provisions of this NC are brought up as if authoritative, there might be some tension. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eine kleine Nachtmusik versus Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart) would certainly make an interesting test case. But to avoid another rancorous Moonlight, might it not be cooler (literally) to address the underlying question: Is WP:MUSICSERIES really in keeping with Wikipedia's naming convention policy? MistyMorn (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my own position: It seems to me needlessly unfriendly to the broad Wikipedia readership to omit the common name (Moonlight, Waldstein, Appassionata, New World, Pastoral, Pathetique, etc, etc) altogether from the title (as distinct from redirects). I am asking whether WP:MUSICSERIES is in keeping with Wikipedia naming policy. I felt the guideline was 'pushed through' based mainly on local consensus (some proponents seem to feel strongly that that that actually a good thing) In brief, is WP:MUSICSERIES a valid local guideline, or is it a fudge? MistyMorn (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart)?

Well, I see Eine kleine Nachtmusik continues to brave the new guidelines... Perhaps somebody on the Project will have the face to implement the change? Or maybe not? There does seem to be some reluctance to engage with comment from the wider community, and I couldn't help noting the strange coincidence of calling for Resolution and closure within a couple of hours of a serious Suggest "to bring in the views of some informed outside stakeholders", as per a self-respecting guideline discussion. But, as Jimmy sings elsewhere, "You can't always get what you want..." Anyway, having seen my observations receive the Eine Kleinzach music project treatment (cf above, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia), I now feel more comfortable contributing from "outside the group". MistyMorn (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I would say Eine Kleine is a completely different case than the Moonlight. First, the composer himself called it that. Second, the 'real' name isn't always used -- I have one recording that used "Serenade in G" as a subtitle with no 13, and another that doesn't even mention serenade on the cover at all. The serenades are also not quite as obviously ordered as Beethoven's piano sonatas are. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Melodia. So, presumably, there's even more reason here to use the common name. WP:MUSICSERIES seems to think differently. It actually takes the Mozart serenades as a representative example of the policy: Examples of this kind of series are the Mozart serenades and divertimenti... Where Eine kleine Nachtmusik is currently listed as Serenade No. 13 for String Quartet & Bass in G major... etc. However, as I think you've gathered, the issue I'm raising (apart from the tit for tat with Kleinzach) is broader. MistyMorn (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MistyMorn, for pointing out the problem with the WP:MUSICSERIES guideline having included Mozart serenades and divertimenti as an example. In my opinion this has nothing at all to do with WP:UCN. Rather, the category of Mozart's "serenades and divertimenti" is not a true category at all, but has always been merely a convenient way of grouping together a number of miscellaneous works for various instrumental combinations. I believe it was Kleinzach who originally used this as an example in the guideline, and I suggest he replace it with a more appropriate example. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, does anyone know whether Mozart himself numbered his serenades and divertimenti, or even categorized them as such, or was either the categorizing and/or numbering done posthumously by his publishers?
And Melodia makes a crucial distinction between a true name assigned by the composer, which has become a "common name", as opposed to a mere nickname. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering Divertimento No. 5 is spurious and Serenade No. 2 is just a set of Four Contredances (the NMA doesn't mention it being a serenade), the answer is obvious. Actually, looking at the NMA it doesn't use the numbers at all, even for symphonies, concerti, sonatas, etc. But interestingly, one can compare "Serenade in D („Posthorn-Serenade“)" and Sinfonie in C („Jupiter-Sinfonie“) to "Serenade in G. Eine kleine Nachtmusik" to reenforce my original point -- in THIS case, the title really IS the non-generic name, it's not just a nickname. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this explanation, Melodia. I had only noticed that CDs give inconsistent numbers to Mozart's violin sonatas, and had guessed that the numbering - and perhaps also the categorizations - were all post facto, and confused. The same sort of problem of inconsistency applies to Beethoven's piano trios, as opposed to his piano sonatas. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The question remains: Is MUSICSERIES genuinely fit for purpose? (Or is it perhaps a neat way of satisfying the sorting inclinations of selected members of a local project?) Since the RfC was so abruptly closed, the question wasn't really examined by uninvolved parties, as I believe it should have been. Instead, the suggestion was dismissed (above) as continual interference from metapedians demanding compliance with superficial, generalised rules applied out of context. What, like the WP:UCN policy? MistyMorn (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here deliberately addressing only your first question, "Is WP:MUSICSERIES genuinely fit for purpose?", I strongly believe that it is, wherever it can be applied consistently. It was very helpful for you to have pointed out that Mozart's serenades and divertimenti was a poor and inappropriate example. As to the remainder of your post, I can only say that I understand the point you have been trying to make. But I can also understand others' impatience, if that's the correct word, with it. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listening MU (impatience is normal) - I think the question can only be tested by informed, uninvolved outsiders. MistyMorn (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken that the Mozart serenades and divertimenti are not a well ordered series. I'll remove them as examples if that's the consensus. (I don't think this is a big deal as we have already allowed for cases like these. No one has ever said that all series have to be numbered.) Any suggestions for a more typical example? --Kleinzach 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I've put the Bach_cello_suites but I'm open to any other ideas. --Kleinzach 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the revised phrasing of WP:MUSICSERIES covers the ground thoroughly, giving good examples of different kinds of series. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside question: So what does the present WP:MUSICSERIES call Eine Kleine Nachtmusik?

If you cannot agree what it means on the basis of the paragraph alone, it doesn't offer real guidance, and you are best off recasting it into something clearer. JCScaliger (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But answer came there none...? MistyMorn (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is now clearer: Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. JCScaliger (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this discussion is silly

Because we are not arguing about the name of the article. We are only arguing about the words that appear at the top of the page. After all, if a high school student has to do a report on the Death and the Maiden Quartet, she will find it, even if she doesn't know that it is the String quartet No. 14 (Schubert). Moreover, she might be pleasantly surprised that the first sentence of her report is already written for her just by looking at the words at the top of the article's page.

I think much of the concern here over naming conventions is because many (most?) of us grew up in a time when information was stored on mashed-up tree trunks, pressed, glued together, and stacked in large rooms. In those days, if you didn't know the name of a book, it might be very hard to find. By advancing (regressing?) to a time when the world's knowledge is being reduced to infinitesimal electrical pulses, these biases about standardization vs. popularization become moot. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All article titles have this element of silliness. Nevertheless, an article can only have one title, and we should generally try for the title best for the encyclopedia. One conclusion from Ravpapa's discussion would be that we should not have such labels, but purely numeric pages (like the Britannica does). This would make editing WP much harder, and reading it somewhat harder, but we could go there. But the other possible conclusion is to discuss it in a tone befitting things of air. JCScaliger (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind. This discussion is not silly. But it is not about naming conventions of articles on musical works. It is about power.
The question being discussed here - sometimes explicitly, but always in the background - is, who has the power to determine policy in this area? The question has set one clique - the 10 or 15 editors of the classical music project (only a few of whom have actually participated in the discussion, but all of whom agree with the policy as changed) against another clique - the 15 or 20 editors who participate in general discussions of Wikipedia style and policy. No one outside of those two cliques has participated in the discussion, nor is it likely that anyone else will.
The classical music clique has - intentionally or unintentionally - challenged the power of the policy clique by deciding on a guideline without actively seeking the involvement of the policy guys. Nor is it the first time that the classical guys have done this. They are, it seems, a pretty undisciplined and rambunctious bunch, bordering even on the revolutionary.
It is an important feature of the issue at hand that it is so inconsequential. From every point of view - the readers, both informed and uninformed, and the editors involved - there is absolutely no difference whether the words at the top of the article are "Symphony No. 45 (Haydn)" or "Farewell Symphony", not to the readers and not to the editors. If the issue were substantive, if there was a real advantage to some group or other, it would not be appropriate for this discussion. Because the issue is not one of substance, but one of, who gets to decide?
Who says that Wikipedia is not a social experiment? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd very much like to agree with you that Wikipedia titles are insignificant, I can't. It's the first thing a reader sees, and calling something familiar by an abstruse formula just isn't friendly to the general reader. That's why I think that prevalent nicknames ("Pastoral" etc) should be included in the titles.
A gentle disclaimer: I, for one, wasn't aware of belonging to any clique. And when I suggested broadening the discussion to informed stakeholders, I had no intention of eliciting opinions from a clique. I agree that as a pioneering, open-community encyclopaedia Wikipedia always has been a fascinating "social experiment". But my comments about selection bias were in no way intended as a social experiment: just observations regarding the limited local character of the consensus. MistyMorn (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A not-so-gentle rebuttal: I accept at face value your statement that you are not aware of belonging to a clique. Yet the fact of the matter is that all of the participants in this discussion who are not members of the classical music project - you, SMcCavendish, DohnJoe, Erik Haugen, JCScaliger - are precisely the people who participate regularly in discussions at the Village Pump and on the MOS talk pages. You all know each other (virtually, I mean - I doubt you have ever met), you know each others' views, and, when you encounter actions that challenge the institutions you hold sacred (institutions which you yourselves have had a hand in defining), you join forces to defend those institutions.
You believe you are acting in the interests of a larger Wikipedia community, and that may or may not be true. But the measures that you recommend that the music clique should have taken - for example, posting a note at WT:MOS or WT:AT - would have drawn response only from yourselves, and would not have been a step toward involving either readers or uninvolved editors who do not routinely take part in these discussions.
My comments here are only on the dynamics of the discussion, and are not intended to support one position or another; for, as I have said, I consider the issue under discussion completely inconsequential. As for your claim that the title is important, I suggest you do a little experiment: ask your 14-year-old-daughter to pretend she has to do a school paper on the Death and the Maiden quartet. Ask her to Google Death and the Maiden, and read what she finds. Then, ask her to tell you what the title of the Wikipedia article was. I am willing to bet the she will say it is "Death and the Maiden Quartet". --Ravpapa (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final personal disclaimer: I have not, to my knowledge, "participate[d] regularly in discussions at the Village Pump and on the MOS talk pages" of SMcCavendish, DohnJoe, Erik Haugen, and JCScaliger. Rather, as far as I can recall, I first dialogued with them either here or in the 'Moonlight' discussion and have not entered directly in discussion with them (or with Kleinzach) in matters not related to the present topic. As an active wikipedian, I have indeed participated at the centralized forums of Village Pump, but in different contexts where I did not notice the participation of the editors you mention. Enough please: I have other things to do in life than defend myself from these aspersions. MistyMorn (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A clique? These guys? I assure you there is very little joining of forces going on across WT:AT. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravapapa notes that few of us CM editors have bothered responding and so I will bother by saying: why is all this nonsense continuing? We thrashed out this stuff at the Moonlight talk page where both consensus and the logic behind that consensus were absolutely clear. That discussion itself was already too long and tedious; these further attempts to undermine the naming conventions come across as the mere onanism of determined policy grammaticasters. I move this pointless discussion be closed and archived. Eusebeus (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MistyMorn: You are right, I am wrong. You are not part of the MOS clique. My mistake and apologies. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I, Ravpapa. I'm not sure I've ever been to the Village Pump, or have ever made an edit at MOS or its talkpages. I also had not come across MistyMorn until the Moonlight Sonata discussion. I couldn't tell you the first thing about SMcCavendish's views. Just for the record. Dohn joe (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to thank Ravpapa for having the goodness to apologise. That has cheered me up. I sincerely want to have a collaborative relationship editing with all you guys and hate getting into personal unpleasantness. The editor here with whom I've had most friendly correspondence is MilkUnderwood, who is firmly on the other side of this debate. MistyMorn (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?

Now that a few days at least have passed since the first discussion, I went back and looked at the new section with fresh eyes. And it seemed to me that the new section is almost completely redundant of the preceding section. Maybe you all can help me figure out how they're different?

The "Disambiguation" section has two bullets. The second bullet begins: "An extra level of disambiguation may be required if one composer has written several works with the same title (this is particularly true of works with generic titles like "Symphony" or "String Quartet")." Isn't that exactly the same as a series? Especially when you look at the directions and samples given: disambiguate by, in order, cardinal number, opus no., key, and catalogue number.

Then the new "Articles in series" section gives essentially identical advice: disambiguate by, in order, cardinal number, opus no., and catalogue. The only difference I see is that the new section does not mention key as a way to disambiguate. Am I missing something? How are these two sections different? Can't they be merged? Dohn joe (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the two sections are distinct and refer to different things. Merging would confuse editors. Clarity is important even is there is some overlap in the examples. --Kleinzach 04:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how are they different? What is the distinction between "one composer writing several works with the same title", and "a series of works by one composer"? And when the examples of both include symphonies, concertos, etc., and the advice is essentially the same (aside from key), I don't see the distinction. If there is one, I'd appreciate someone telling me what it is - not just there is one. Dohn joe (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you. Please see what I wrote in the previous topic. I think it would be better if you made an actual proposal rather than simply talking about it. If you did that we could judge your suggestion objectively on its merits. --Kleinzach 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out if an actual proposal is even necessary at this point. I've read the entire discussion on this page, read the entire guideline, and I still am unsure what the difference is between the second bullet at Disambiguation and the Articles in series section. What does the one address that the other one doesn't (or vice versa)? If you can answer that question for me, then I may well have no proposal to make. I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it, so I'm hoping you can spell it out for me. Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The essential difference is that people who want guidance on disambiguation will go to that section, while those who want guidance on articles in series will go to the other. (Usually people will only read one particular section.) Some duplication of examples etc. is normal in these circumstances, though perhaps we can think of better examples etc. I hope I've now answered your questions satisfactorily. --Kleinzach 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can help.
  • The Disambiguation section lists preferred criteria for formatting article titles.
  • The Articles in series section says that once a preferred format is established for a series, use that same format for all article titles in the series.
While some examples may be similar, the meanings of the two sections are not redundant at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Perhaps Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? MistyMorn (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
So it was added to be pedantic? Have you considered that voice is often considered an instrument... and thus all "songs" are instrumentals. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music)&oldid=475023766"