Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by MistyMorn in topic Self-selection bias?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Language

What language to use for the titles of works?

I haven't seen this discussed, and it's apropos because I recently noticed two articles about the same opera: Samson and Delilah (opera) and the original title Samson et Dalila. What should be the "main" entry? (of course the other should be a redirect).

It isn't obvious to me. My slight bias is to say this is the English language WP, so use the anglicizations (Marriage of Figaro) unless the work is always or nearly always referred to, even by Anglophones, in its original language (Cosi fan Tutte). Another approach would be to use the title that informed/educated English speakers most commonly use, which wasn't intended to be as elitist as it sounds.

But since I expect any of my original contributions will be about British music, I'm not so fussed about it.

p.s. why isn't this page laid out with section headings instead of ----? Is it improper to reformat talk pages? David Brooks 07:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we can just follow the convention laid out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." In other words, pretty much what you said above (Marriage of Figaro but Cosi fan tutte, and, say, The Rite of Spring but Les Noces). But of course, so long as there is a redirect, it doesn't really matter much one way or the other (so the fact that the article is actually at Le Nozze di Figaro isn't a big deal, even if it's not where I'd've put it myself).
By the way, this page doesn't use headings because most of it was written before such usage became the norm (headings didn't always produce a table of contents, so there wasn't so much point in using them on talk pages). If you want to reformat it, that's fine (but at the same time there's no pressing need to do so if you don't want). --Camembert

Major/minor conventions

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't the word "Major" be spelled with a capitol M and "minor" with a lower case one? Usually, I see both lowercase. Also, shouldn't the key letter of a minor piece be lowercase, as in a minor vs. C Major? -- Asmeurer 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I had just been following the conventions that others are using here. Always capital key letter and always lower-case 'm' and no hyphen between key and accidental. "C major", "C minor", "C sharp major", C sharp minor", "C flat major", "C flat minor". That's the convention I've seen widespread here -- I don't have strong personal opinion to do anything other than be consistent with what is most widely used. I do understand that often the minor key is denoted with a lower-case letter by itself. "C major" = "C" and "C minor" = "c". Double variation uses some of that in its table, but in the text this is usually avoided. DavidRF 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of different wikipedia style guides for musical keys: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music#Capitalization_of_musical_keys and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Major_and_minor. Sometimes I go a little overboard with minor format edits, but I always try hard to make sure the content that the original edit contains remains unchanged. DavidRF 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That was what I was looking for but couldn't find. I will use those conventions, even if it does annoy the hell out of me to see the word "Major" lowercase. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this information to this page. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Even among musicians, like on concert programs and stuff, if you're spelling out the key, it's always capital key letter, small m. The capitalization thing is only for abbreviations. If the abbreviation consists of only one letter, capitalization tells you whether it's major or minor. If it consists of two letters, then the key is always capitalized, and the M/m tells you whether it's major or minor (i.e. CM, Dm). If it consists of more than two letters, it's always big key letter, small m (i.e. "Cmaj", "Dmin").
In other words, you only ever futz with the captialization where it's necessary to distinguish between major and minor. SFT | Talk 08:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Italics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page uses italics in unusual ways. My understanding is that generic titles are in Roman (e.g. Piano Concerto No. 5, Sixth Symphony etc), and true titles are in italics (e.g. Enigma Variations, L'Arlésienne) are in italics. If anyone disagrees with my edits please explain here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What parties are we ignoring? Hyacinth (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs in musical theatre

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion going on here regarding naming conventions of songs from musicals. Feel free to join! Yves (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguating orchestral work titles from other non-musical uses

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Perhaps this is a solution looking for a problem but I'm interested in opinions on disambiguating articles on Western orchestral music. WP:NCM calls for a composer's surname to be used to disambiguate two works with the same name but what about when a work shares a name with a non-musical entity? This is not specified in the guidelines and, although the composer's name is often used in these cases as well, in a number of cases other disambiguators are used. Should composer's names be used in cases like these below as well? —  AjaxSmack  14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're operating uner the presumption here that there is only one orchestral work under the name, I would see no reason to include the composer's name in the title. bd2412 T 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Although I only provided exceptions above, the composer's name is often or usually used as a DAB in cases of only one orchestral work under the name. E.g., Evangelist (Bach), Pageant of Empire (Elgar), Peer Gynt (Grieg), Tapiola (Sibelius). Should these then be retitled? —  AjaxSmack  15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting to find Evangelist as an orchestral work of Bach! The article deals with the role (!) of the Evangelist in Bach's works, differentng it from other uses, and should please not be retitled, similar Missa (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, the Classical music project does not have a specific guideline on this (at Style guidelines), probably because it's never surfaced as an issue.

Opera has looked at it, because so many titles are shared with mythological or historical figures, or by works by other composers. The Opera project guideline is here: Operas: avoiding ambiguity.

I think Classical music editors have generally followed the same principles (as Opera) with their articles: using the composer's name for the second piece of music with the same title (e.g. Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)), but using '(music)' or something similar to distinguish a musical work from a literary one (or whatever). This could be formalized in a guideline, however it would be difficult to implement systematically, with maybe around 10,000 or so articles. (I'm not against having a guideline.) --Kleinzach 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the disambiguators in that list above are awkward (music, 8 medieval lyrics, piano piece, composition), others would be awkward when disambiguated by the composer's name (Rinaldo (Brahms) might suggest an opera by Brahms). I think that in general there's no need for instruction creep in this matter. Over time, editors in this field will seek consensus for a better title; with the help of redirects and Wikipedia's rather smart search box, interested readers should have no problem finding these articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Puctuation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page does not address punctuation in song or album titles (and I'm not talking about the technical restriction punctuation). I'm talking about exclamation marks, periods (full stops), etc. I bring this up after a requested move failed where there was punctuation in the title (Janet (album) → Janet.). Instead of making arguments in the move discussion that all of these other page titles include punctuation...

(Please note that all the above pages are featured or good articles. With that said, all titles have been reviewed.)
...I have decided to go to the page that can set the policy. One editor used MoS:TM as an argument against the punctuation, but I feel that trademarks ≠ titles of intellectual property. There can be punctuation in titles of screen works, literature, and many other arts. What is the difference here? I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Catalogue Number example.

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The last three Schubert piano sonatas are discussed at Schubert's last sonatas and therefore our example is a red link to Piano Sonata, D. 958 (Schubert) I can create a redirect, but do we want to find a better example?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be another article as worthy as 958–960, but from an educational point, anything with a modified key name would be good, e.g. Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D. 568 (Schubert). When someone implements this, the Prelude in C sharp minor (Rachmaninoff) should be moved according to Talk:Prelude in C sharp minor (Rachmaninoff)#Title and a general combing-through is needed for flats and sharps without hyphens. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced it with Handel's Violin sonata in A major (HWV 361). Hardly as well known as the Schubert, but any blue link is FAR better as an example than any red link. Ideally, these cases will be minimal, so finding the best-known example might be a bit of a challenge. Not to mention almost a contradiction in terms. Maybe we need to be looking for the least obscure example, rather than the best-known one. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: addition of a new section

Latest comment: 12 years ago87 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The revised proposal was approved. --Kleinzach01:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

First proposal

In view of previous discussions, I am proposing we add the following sentences to the guide. Thanks for considering this text, and if necessary suggesting improvements in the wording. Otherwise please support or oppose as appropriate. Regards. --Kleinzach 12:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Articles in series: article titles for compositions in the same, or similar forms, should always be accurate and consistent. Examples of this kind of series are the Bach cantatas, Mozart piano concertos, Dvořák symphonies etc.
Normally the series will be numbered, e.g. Symphony No. 1 (Beethoven), Piano Concerto No. 21 (Mozart) etc., though on occasion they may be differentiated by opus number, such as the string quartets of Haydn (e.g. String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)) or Chopin nocturnes (e.g. Nocturnes, Op. 9 (Chopin)), following common practice.
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. For example Symphony No. 8 (Schubert) could be entitled 'Symphony No. 8, Unfinished (Schubert)', but not Unfinished symphony (which is a redirect.)
I'm happy to withdraw paragraph 3 — depending on the way consensus goes with this — or look at alternative wording. --Kleinzach 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Now struck through. --Kleinzach 07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the first two paragraphs per Michael Bednarek. I suggest to have something with the added nickname as a redirect. There are several unfinished and "Pathetique" works of music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the first two paragraphs. I'm not sure it's always going to be clear, even with paragraph 2. For example, what about composers who wrote numbered symphonies who named them other things? Example Lou Harrison, who was quite emphatic that he did not write a "Symphony No. 3", "...I wrote my 'Third Symphony', and note that is its formal name, it is not my 'Symphony No. 3' and I had to get the author of the program notes to fix it..." (I saw him color with anger while saying it; I'm sure it's citable). Also, by this change would we have to moveSinfonia antartica back to Symphony No. 7 (Vaughan-Williams)? Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • To your last point A., surely not if this is the composer's specific name. (e.g. Beethoven's Wellington, Tchaikovsky's Manfred...).Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Re Harrison's Third: notice how cleverly the 2nd paragraph starts with "Normally" (which would excuse the naming of Vaughan Willams' symphonies as well). I'm sure this proposed guideline can accommodate Harrison's symphonies with titles that don't raise his blood pressure. --Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: The Bach cantatas were mentioned above, they are not named according to this suggestion, but - after a lengthy discussion- called "the least cluttered way" (almost the least cluttered way), but they are not really in the category discussed here, because they come with an internationally known name, presented in Wikipedia as the beginnining of the text, followed by a "," (unless the beginning ends on a punctuation), then "BWV", finally the unique # in the BWV catalogue, examples Meinen Jesum laß ich nicht, BWV 124 (the normal way, written for today, first Sunday after Epiphany), Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 (punctuation at the end of the first line, for Pentecost). I don't think to name the former:
Cantata No. 124 (Bach) "Meinen Jesum laß ich nicht" would be an improvement.
Also: if enough people mean Schubert's "Unfinished" symphony (not Bruckner's or Mahler's ...), I think a redirect Unfinished to that symphony is justified, same for Moonlight Sonate. But such a short-cut should not be the name of the article, it's too ambiguous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As Michael Bednarek noted, my intention was to express the importance of consistency (within a series of articles) rather than any particular format hence my Haydn example (opus numbers). We can add another kind of series if necessary.--Kleinzach 09:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand the wish for consistency and support it, and actually I used the word as the one and only opponent to a move fromBeethoven's Sonata No. 14 ... - no need to repeat here. But perhaps we drop the Bach cantatas from the suggestion and add a different kind of series instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, are you saying that the Bach Cantata titles should not be 'accurate and consistent' per paragraph 1? I'd have thought the cantatas would be like any other series, no? --Kleinzach12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I try to say that they are accurate and consistent without following the suggested format. They contain the composer (hidden) in the abbreviation BWV, and they don't say "cantata" anywhere to keep it simple. They used to be just a string of German, which was highly ambiguous and not easy to understand, - we changed that to consistently (!) adding the unique BWV no. (which is at the same time the cantata no.) even to those which were unambiguous. The German and Norsk WP followed the example for the ambiguous ones, leaving the others as strings of German, which makes sense in German. - Therefore I suggest to rather refer to Haydn's string quartets or other series than the cantatas for this purpose.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What 'suggested format' are you referring to? I don't understand. --Kleinzach 13:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand: "type of work" - "number" - (composer), example Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think Gerda got spooked by "Bach cantata" as the 1st example in the proposal as they are somewhat different from symphonies, piano sonatas etc. However, I think that's a misunderstanding; all the proposal calls for is a consistent format across the series, not that every series follow the same formula. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Gerda's point fits well into the proposal, I think, and I nearly mentioned it in my Support post below. Bach's cantatas are not an exception, but as a series they should each be titled by name, in German, and BWV. Concerning Scarlatti, brought up below, which of the various numbering schemes is the most complete and up-to-date, and currently widely used in scholarly publications? If we get articles on individual sonatas they should follow this scheme, and redirect from other numbering systems. Beethoven piano trios by opus numbers, with redirects from nicknames; Beethoven piano sonatas by ordinal numbers, with redirects from nicknames, etc. We should simply be consistentwithin series. Where there are problems of potential inconsistencies within a given series, the best thing to do is to bring the question right here for discussion. Redirects are never a problem, except by their absence. We could have any number of them at all, and definitely need many more than we presently have, for many potential searches. We need one right now for "beethoven piano trios", which I tried to search a few hours ago. Milkunderwood (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic - I occasionally see a confusion between ordinal and cardinal numbers. There's an easy mnemonic for keeping this distinction straight: ordinal - think order, "ordered" sequential numbers; cardinal - think "take a card, any card".Milkunderwood (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to read "not that every series follow the same formula". The Bach cantatas are already consistently named as described above, with redirects "BWV #", good news, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • General support: It’s good to be thinking about some broad principles, rather than always arguing at the single article level (e.g. the Moonlight argy-bargy). I’m sure if we tried hard enough we could come up with dozens and dozens of exceptions and imponderables. I currently dislike Piano Concerto No. 10 (Mozart), because whenever this work is played or referenced in the real world - and I mean every single time - it’s called the "Concerto for Two Pianos", never "Piano Concerto No. 10". Our title is very misleading because it leads one to assume it’s a concerto for a single piano and orchestra, until you read further. Same for Piano Concerto No. 7 (Mozart), which turns out to be for three pianos and orchestra. But we’re hidebound by a rigid externally imposed convention that has all of Mozart’s 27 piano concertos numbered in a single series regardless of the numbers of pianos involved. (Also, the early ones were what we normally call "arrangements", not substantive original works by Mozart, and they ideally belong in a different section of the catalogue.) If we call these 2 works by the common names we’re supposed to be using, that would leave 2 gaps in the sequence, which would invite the inevitable queries. And it’s certainly not up to us to be removing them from the sequence and renumbering the rest. Even converting them to redirects to the common names would destroy the symmetry of 27 concertos all named exactly the same way. So, that’s just one tiny example of how these issues are not amenable to the “one size fits all” approach. I could go on at great length. But I’ll just say I generally support the rule being proposed here, subject to the clear understanding that there are some things that just can’t and won't be forced to fit it; or, if they have been forced (such as the Mozart concertos, which thankfully was not our doing), it’s at the expense of sense and clarity. But them’s the breaks with musical nomenclature.-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely in agreement, especially as I'm familiar with the Mozart piano concerto issue. If you feel the wording could be improved, I'd be delighted if you could have a go at redrafting it. --Kleinzach 12:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, providing it is made clear that this is guidance (want to avoid instruction creep), and that the exception is reworded so as not to make it seem as if opus numbering is the only exception. Also, shouldn't it be an addition to the Compositions (classical music) section rather than a new section? I agree with all of JackofOz's comments. --Stfg (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I too am glad to see JackofOz's thoughtful comments, and his general support for the proposal. I might add to his examples the problems involved with Beethoven's piano trios, where recordings sometimes give the inconsistent ordinal numbers assigned at various times - in this case opus numbers are needed to clearly identify them. And although Wikipedia acknowledges and uses the generally accepted ordinal numbering of Mozart's mature violin sonatas, some older recordings have conflicting numbers - for instance Heifetz calls K.378 "Sonata No. 10" rather than No. 26, and Ricci calls this same sonata "No. 34". Again, Heifetz calls K.454 "Sonata No. 15" rather than No. 32. The Boskovsky/ Kraus edition, and many other recordings, forgo using ordinal numbers.Milkunderwood (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And what about the 555 Scarlatti keyboard sonatas. We have only 1 article on a single sonata at this stage (Cat Fugue) but others must surely be coming. Old refs tend to call them just, eg. "Sonata in G", which could refer to almost 100 different works (69 in G major, 25 in G minor). And now we have 3 different numbering systems, which is just dandy. So, potentially we'll have 555 articles like Sonata in G major, K.454, L.184, P.423 (Scarlatti). Fun. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I do not know enough about WP's inner workings to reach a genuinely informed view. I do concur with the three comments above (by JackofOz, Stfg and MilkUnderwood). I too have concerns about instruction creep. I also do not really see why classical music entries are so different that they should not follow WP:COMMONNAME. WP is a general encyclopaedia rather than a specialised one, and only a small subset of the WP readership will be users of, say, Grove. This implies, imo, the need for a different editorial approach to both content and presentation. I think the Moonlight sonata case exemplifies some of the issues. I'm far from convinced that it is an inappropriate title for WP. 'Moonlight sonata' is how the vast majority of people refer to the work in the real world. The article itself doesn't dumb the sonata down in any way I can see; key information on the catalogue name is immediately presented to the reader in bold, ahead of the nickname, and there's a clear explanation of the posthumous origin of the nickname. On the other hand, I agree that having two separate articles, as per WP:SUBARTICLE, might be a useful solution (though we'd still need a small section in the main article explaining the origin of the nickname). To me, these considerations argue in favour of maintaining flexibility, rather than trying to impose across the board the sort of strictly catalogue-based approach to naming which may be entirely suitable for 'Lists of compositions'. Just my 2c. MistyMorn (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Btw, anyone for Piano music of Gabriel Fauré? MistyMorn (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As in my comments above, I don't see a problem with Fauré. Use ordinal numbers for a numbered series, use opus numbers for unnumbered or miscellaneous works. The "flexibility" suggested in the post above just creates confusion. Redirect, redirect, redirect. Of course readers do not have or use Grove, and there's absolutely no need for them to. Redirect. It solves every problem. Try typing in "engine charlie" as a search: it takes you directly to Charles Erwin Wilson. And a reader who knows the former Sec'y of Defense only by that nickname, by going to a page titled with his correct name the reader learns something useful. This is exactly what we should be doing here with music. Yesterday I had occasion to search for Cardinal Stritch, and there is no redirect. Who the hell knows his first name? Milkunderwood (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh... so can we say the deplorably confusing observations in my post [I] just got 'engine charlied'? Not being from the US, your illustration rather goes over my head. And I'm not particularly interested in being educated either by you or by WP in general. Like most WP users, I believe, I consult for encyclopaedic information delivered in a user-friendly format. Btw, this is not a hostile post and I'm not saying that WP has nothing to do with education: I just don't think we should lose touch with context and the real world. In my view, WP:COMMONNAMEis a good policy for a non-specialist publication like Wikipedia. And I can see no overriding reason why it should not generally be implemented in a sensible and flexible way in a field like classical music, which is already perceived by most as a ghetto. My 2 cents, and I'm sticking to them,MistyMorn (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
MistyMorn, I certainly did not say anything like "deplorably confusing observations in [your] post", and had no intention of implying any such thing. I apologize if I gave offense. I thought your post was well thought out, and unlike my own, well expressed. I do think it can be confusing to a reader interested in Beethoven sonatas in the plural to title most of his sonatas by number, and to find one, or occasional ones, by nickname instead. My point was simply that a redirect immediately solves the problem. If I as a reader came to look at Beethoven piano sonatas and found that all except No. 14 were titled by number, with "Moonlight Sonata" sticking out like a sore thumb, I would wonder, Why in the world would any encyclopedia do something like that? Milkunderwood (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No offence taken. I quite agree that articles providing lists of compositions should adopt a sensibly catalogued format. But I just don't think WP as a whole quite works that way. My limited understanding is that it's preferable but not obligatory to be technically consistent when titling WP articles. I'm not sure how many WP users are going to take the trouble of gaining an overview of sets of music articles in WP to check the consistency and symmetry of titling. That certainly seems to me a secondary concern with respect to user-friendly communication of quality encyclopaedic information. To me, the key feature is that both the technically correct name and the 'common name' should be prominently presented in the opening sentence. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Re "Engine Charlie Wilson": Brits are not alone here - there are probably no more than around 100 living Americans who have ever encountered that nickname. He was called that to distinguish him from "Electric Charlie Wilson". :-) Engine Charlie used to keep a sign on his desk saying something very close to Non te bastardi carborundum, but I may be omitting a small word. (He did not use the bowdlerized version given here at WP.) Pretty good advice. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: It should be specified that where they are consistent and widely accepted, ordinal numbers are preferred as thedefault for any given series. Lacking consistency or wide acceptance, opus numbers or other widely used numbering scheme (e.g. BWV, K., etc) should be used instead. Where an entire series is universally known by individual assigned titles (Bach cantatas), these are then the preferred choice. Always use redirects lavishly. And miscellaneous exceptions should be referred here for discussion.Milkunderwood (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bach cantatas don't have titles. But a scheme of beginning of the text + BWV # is universally accepted and unambiguous. Several cantatas begin with the same words (BWV 61 and BWV 62, for example), the chorale cantatas begin with the same words as the chorale they are based on, many begin with the same words as organ preludes or motets, there is Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191, - but the simple addition of the BWV # makes them unique. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant. The point is that there is a "universally accepted and unambiguous" identification system in place. You could say that the opening lines thus become assigned "titles". Milkunderwood (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Two further points. I have had interesting discussions with User:DavidRF about outdated numbering schemes, he generally taking the position that Wikipedia should reflect only the most current and scholarly numbering system in the lede, I on the other hand taking the viewpoint of readers coming to Wikipedia from recordings which may very well identify compositions by outdated numbering systems. I certainly agree that article titles should reflect modern usage only, but that there's no reason not to acknowledge older numberings in the lede where appropriate. Nicknames should also be discussed in the lede. This should also solve Jack's problem of Scarlatti numbering systems: mention alternative systems in the lede, and use as many redirects as may be helpful. --Second, I don't really see a problem with Mozart's piano concertos Nos. 7 and 10. Ordinal numbering should follow convention, and redirects should point to their unique instrumentation.Milkunderwood (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is - or was until 5 minutes ago when I created redirects - that if anyone searched for Concerto for Three Pianos and Orchestra (Mozart) or Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Mozart), they wouldn't have found any such articles, or even any redirects to what they are called. Who except musical lexicographers and academics know they're formally classified as "Piano Concerto No. 7" and "10" respectively? They are simply never called that in real life. Never. But to change the titles would have implications (see above) that can't easily be dealt with. We're probably stuck with redirects, but I can't believe it's taken till now for that to happen. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see being "stuck with redirects" as a problem at all - redirects are the solution. The more the better. Throughout the entire encyclopedia - such as for Cardinal Stritch, mentioned above. And you can't believe how happy I am that No. 7 is not titled "Lodron Concerto".Milkunderwood (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I think redirects are essential to WP and we'd all be lost without them. But sometimes, as in this case, they assume the character of a "workaround".
I don't want this sort of example to undermine the purpose of this discussion, which is about support for the proposed additions to the naming conventions. It's worth bringing these cases out into the light, but I can't readily think of any other example of a work that's known to the entire world by one name, yet for abstruse historical reasons the lexicographers have given it a different and quite unintuitive and quite misleading name, and we're all held hostage to that because their word is sacrosanct. If they said that black is white, we'd have no option but to accept it. Maybe one day someone will blow up those parts of the Kochel catalogue that can't withstand even cursory scrutiny, and start again. Until then ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The real world is messy, and we can cope only by attempting to impose some sort of order on it, even when it isn't the best fit. Is "autism" a "condition" or a "spectrum"? Is there really such a thing as a biological "species", or is this merely a heuristic definition to be argued over? And we could wish that Alan Hovhaness had made an attempt to impose some kind of reasonable order on his own catalog. New Grove pretty much throws up its collective hands, and makes a mess a bigger mess. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'd better strike those two entirely inapposite rhetorical questions. Here is a better one: Did Beethoven write eight piano trios or twelve piano trios?Milkunderwood (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you struck that stuff out. As you seem to have realised, every disease/condition has a spectrum of manifestations, and no human can have natural, fertile offspring with a chimpanzee, for instance. May I make a genuinely friendly suggestion? I think it's better to stay largely on topic in a serious and substantial debate like this. I was trying to explain my position above, but my argument drew an obscure off-topic response about the nickname of some US politician who means absolutely nothing to me. I'd rather debate the topic in hand, messy as it may be. Again, just my 2 cents, MistyMorn (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify since my name came up, when I was talking about outdated numbering schemes, I'm talking over 50 years old, often more than 100 years old. The pre-Mandycewski letters for Haydn symphonies is one example. Also, many of Haydn's works have Opus numbers that are never used. The cello concerto in D being "Op. 101" started off a discussion. Its harmless to add that to a list or an article but I didn't think it was worth tracking down all the other opus numbers. The "FHE" (First Haydn Edition) marking for the string quartets brings up the occasional question from readers because its out of date and the ordering is so weird. I've never seen that anywhere but here. FOr other composers, many symphonic lists have been renumbered so one might have old 78 records that say "No. 5" for the New World Symphony or "No. 7" for Schubert's Great C Major. I was in a debate a while back concerning the "19th" and "20th" sonatas of Mozart. The "19th" (K 547a) is an obvious transcription of a violin sonata and "No. 20" has been known to be spurious is 1805 (!) but we still deal with the "controversy" regarding its authorship and numbering because a well-known publisher likes to pad their scorebooks with it.
My problem with the old indices is that when they are included here, then wikipedia is actively perpetuating them when they should be put to rest (and are sometimes just plain wrong). Also, this isn't about anything recent (or even semi-recent). People do need time to adjust to those. On of the other challenges of the problems I mentioned in the previous paragraph is that nobody writes about them anymore because its so far out of date. I tried to look up K498a and all I found was a single footnotes stating that the work was spurious and wasn't included in the book. The old books that mention pre-Mandycewski letters for Haydn symphonies are over 100 years old now and would be difficult to track down. Or to find which works were removed from Mozart's lists of Masses or Violin Sonatas to create the gaps in the numbering... you'd have to find a book old enough to include the mistakes. I can't find any mention of the missing works in anything written in the past century.
This is probably off-topic here, but I felt I should clarify what my point was a couple of months ago since another user has brought it up. Sorry for being so long-winded.DavidRF (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. I hope I hadn't misstated your view. My point in our discussions was that people might well have scores hidden away in their piano benches, printed well over 100 years ago, and that it does no harm to reference outdated numberings somewhere in the article - definitely not in the title, in any case - as long as the numbering confusion is clarified. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adoption of the first two paragraphs. They seem to consolidate and clarify the approach we have generally taken already. The problem with the third paragraph was that it could have been seen as authorising a new style of title that we haven't used much hitherto. Including these first two paragraphs would back up the stance many of us have taken over the Moonlight Sonata, and may suggest that one or two other articles like Minute Waltz and Eine kleine Nachtmusik should be moved, but for the most part they reinforce existing practice — we don't want to initiate a change in policy that could result in hundreds of page moves. There will always be exceptional cases such as the Vaughan Williams named symphonies already discussed, where the composer has expressly given a work a title rather than a number, and these are perhaps best discussed individually. What we are proposing here is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. --Deskford (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I've read and (I hope) absorbed the discussion above. Here is a revised text, please support or suggest changes as appropriate. Regards.--Kleinzach 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally the series will be numbered, e.g. Symphony No. 1 (Mahler), Piano Concerto No. 21 (Mozart) etc., though on occasion they may be differentiated by opus number, such as the string quartets of Haydn (e.g. String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)) or Chopin nocturnes (e.g. Nocturnes, Op. 9 (Chopin)), or by catalogue number, such as the Bach cantatas (e.g. Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51), or by some other well-established method. In all cases, current scholarly practice should be followed. (Numbering schemes or title forms that are not generally accepted should be avoided, and they should not be invented.)
  • Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems useful in these cases to have an article or section where the whole set is summarized with links to the individual pieces, and a template. Examples: the section Beethoven piano concertos mentioned above, with a template for his concertos, for the Bach cantatas lists and a template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. But I'd remove the "accurate and" from "... should always be accurate and consistent". Not that they shouldn't be accurate, but what is "accurate" in this kind of context is a very vexed question, as most of the preceding demonstrates. Both sides of the Moonlight Sonata debate would no doubt claim their preferred title is "accurate" - and both would be right, in their way. Claims of accuracy don't help decide these issues; not one little bit. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"Accurate" may be difficult to define for all possible cases, but it still is a requirement. "Consistent" is IMO the main part of the proposal; without it, the proposal has no substance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(e.c.) 'Precise' might be an alternative, though it might be used to justify over-complicated titles. I think I'd prefer 'accurate'.--Kleinzach 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with consistency. And of course accuracy is a requirement for anything that appears in an encyclopedia. But how accuracy is manifested can vary. We have a general principle about "verifiability, not truth". If it's verifiable that a certain series of works by a certain composer is generally known by a certain uniform set of names, that meets the requirement. We don't have to impose "accuracy" on top of that to achieve our goals here. It gets us too close to truth and too far away from verifiability, in my opinion. There are many examples of works that are generally known by names that are materially different from the exact names their composers gave them. Having a requirement of "accuracy" would open the door to those who might prefer to move Goldberg Variations to the exact name Bach gave it: Clavier Ubung bestehend in einer ARIA mit verschiedenen Verænderungen vors Clavicimbal mit 2 Manualen. It was actually longer than that, but you get my point. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstain/Suggest, despite my appreciation for Kleinzach's careful and judicious work. This is because I still feel that the best namespace to provide scholarly naming in a consistent fashion is at the start of the opening sentence of the lede. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that this procedure is broadly consistent with WP practice as a whole, should be more intuitive to the general readership, and avoids making classical music a 'special case'. On the other hand, I do support this effort to provide sensible and workable guidance for scholarly naming of works of classical music across Wikipedia. MistyMorn (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. (Am I right in assuming it's an additional bullet in the Compositions (classical music) section rather than a completely new section?) --Stfg (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. --Kleinzach 12:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just now, I remembered: "When in doubt, read the manual." Turns out that Wikipedia:Article titles makes several salient points which address our quandary here. In short:
"[…] editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and be recognizable."
The "several principles" are then presented in the first section where "Precision" and "Consistency" seem to cover what we are trying to say here. I think we would be on very safe ground if we refer explicitly to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in the first sentence of Kleinzach's proposal. --Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that... The trouble is that the criteria listed sometimes compete. For example, 'Moonlight' vs 'No. 14': "Recognizability"/"Naturalness" vs. "Precision"/"Consistency". Are we in effect saying that, as a Project, we prefer to choose the latter (pace WP:COMMONNAME)? MistyMorn (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahem, yes. (ducks for cover) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
And it's pretty harmless, given the encouragement to provide all the redirects we want. --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA does address this issue: "However, in some cases the choice [of title] is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these questions over the others." I think it's reasonable for us to decide to emphasise consistency, for the specific reasons we've been discussing. --Kleinzach13:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"All the redirects we want" goes in the other direction as well. No lead sentence about "Moonlight" could be constructed without the work the nickname was applied to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my main concern is that we shouldn't distance the project from WP style/conventions as a whole (personally, I'm pretty comfortable with either #14 or Moonlight titles, as long as both names are presented in bold at the start of the lede). I support the effort to clarify how our naming conventions tie in with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA etc. I guess such clarification could help shield us from any accusations of splinter group behaviour. And since it is notoriously hard to draw up guideline definitions that cover all eventualities, I think such an approach could also safeguard the sort of flexibility we need to address the sort of "one-size-can't-fit-all" concerns raised above by Jack of Oz, among others. 2c, MistyMorn (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Milkunderwood alternative proposal

I think it would be well to specify exactly what it is that we are trying to do, by adding these additional points:

Articles in series:

  • Normally the series will be numbered, following consistent ordinal numbers commonly used in modern scholarly practice e.g., Beethoven piano sonatas, Nos. 1, 2, [etc]. Where a different scheme of identification such as opus or catalog numbers is more commonly used, these identification schemes should be used instead. Examples are the Köchel catalogue of Mozart's works, the Hoboken-Verzeichnis of Haydn's works, and the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis of J. S. Bach's works. Note, however, that modern scholarly practice uses opus rather than Hoboken numbers for Haydn's string quartets, and an enhanced scheme of identification for Bach's cantatas whereby the first line of text is taken to be an "assigned" title, together with the BWV number. In cases where ordinal numbering is inconsistent or controversial, e.g., theBeethoven piano trios, best practice is to use opus numbers. Numbering schemes or title forms that are not generally accepted should be avoided, and they must not be invented.
  • Full and complete descriptions of a composition should preferably be left for inclusion in the article's lede, and shorter identifiers used as a title. It should rarely be necessary to include more than one or two of these three types of identification in the title: the ordinal number, the key, or the opus or catalog number. Thus a title should normally consist of the musical form, identifier, followed by the composer's name in parentheses for disambiguation if needed, e.g., Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven); Piano Trio, Op. 97 (Beethoven); Sonata for Keyboard Four-hands K.19d (Mozart); Violin Concerto in A minor (Bach); or as an alternate format, Lute Suite in G minor, BWV 995, where the "BWV" reference itself serves to disambiguate. However, each separate composition in a series such as the lute suites of Bach should use the same basic title format, whichever is chosen for that series.
  • Individual compositions that are included in such a well-recognized series of same or similar form but which are commonly known by a nickname, e.g. "Archduke Trio" or "Moonlight Sonata", etc, should have the nickname, or several such nicknames, mentioned in the lede but not included in the article title. A redirect should always point from the nickname to the proper article title. (In a list of compositions by a composer, the nickname should follow the composition number in parentheses and quotation marks.)
  • In any situation where the preceding guidelines might preferably be overridden, such as when a nickname or other widely used name for such a composition is suggested as an article title, best practice will be to bring the proposal to an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus before assigning a formal title to the article.

These three points do not address other problems raised here, such as works in a recognized form but given specific names (as opposed to nicknames) by the composer. Perhaps adding that last bullet point helps? Question: are Nielsen's named (and numbered) symphonies essentially different from the Sinfonia Antartica (Symphony No. 7) of Vaughn Williams in some important respect? Milkunderwood (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would helpful or not at this point in the proceedings for me to say that this formulation was never intended to be an"alternative proposal", differing in any significant respect from Kleinzach's original, or revised, proposals. My first two points are virtually identical to his, with only very minor changes that I thought might be helpful. I take full responsibility for adding the next three points, which may well be just clutter, and offputting to the participants in this discussion. For the record, I am in complete agreement with just about everything Kleinzach has said here, and every argument he has made. This is not at all to say that he may have agreed with any of mine. I sincerely hope that my own poor record of argumentativeness should not in any way detract from his own reasonable and principled stance. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment. This has been a very interesting process to follow, and it has been a good example of how Wikipedia can be a positive collaboration. That said, I do have some issues with the proposal, and some of the underlying motivations.

    As Misty Morn pointed out, the classical music pages are still part of WP as a whole, and titling decisions made here should reflect general WP titling philosophies as much as possible. WP:Article titles is a flexibly written guideline, but at its core is a philosophy promoting the accessibility of our articles. That's why we have a bias towards common, rather than official names.

    Even in the most rigid "specialty" naming conventions, room is allowed for common-name titles, where the subject is overwhelmingly known by that name. WP:Naming conventions (flora) recommends using the scientific name for nearly all plant article titles - but still allows entries like Oak instead of Quercus.

    Perhaps more analogously, WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) calls for a general convention of "Name Ordinal of Country", but still allows for William the Conqueror instead of William I of England.

    So here - I enthusiastically support the regularizing of the classical music conventions as regards numbering vs. opus numbers, etc. But it is a core WP principle to allow for common-name exceptions: Minute Waltz instead of Waltz in D-flat major, Op. 64, No. 1 (Chopin). Individual decisions are always made in the trenches - talkpages and move requests, where usage is determined, and the various titling considerations are weighed. But I think we need to keep the common-name option -and a willingess on the part of classical music article editors to be open to it on occasion. It's the spirit of Wikipedia. Anyone agree?Dohn joe (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but recognise that this view is a minority one, however legitimate it may be (anachronism/s included). MistyMorn (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree there will always be hard questions - such as Jack's concern about Mozart concertos Nos. 7 and 10, or the Sinfonia Antartica, or the Minute Waltz, etc. My own preference would be for such "hard questions" to be brought up here for discussion and consensus before being arbitrarily titled. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The point, though, is that common names are not "arbitrary". They invariably are found in hundreds, if not thousands of reliable sources. And if we allow for common names, then "Minute Waltz" is not a hard question. Let me ask you to respond to the analogy of the royalty naming convention. Do you agree that William the Conqueror (a "nickname") is a more appropriate article title than William I of England(the "official"/consistent name)? Dohn joe (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, first I go back to the important distinction made between a "nickname" and a "common name". To answer your specific question, no, if it were me, I would title as William I of England and redirect from William the Conqueror - but then as I said, I'm not running this show. In the meantime I've incorporated my suggestion now as a new 4th paragraph, above. EDIT: I need to point out that with appropriate redirects, there is absolutely no difference in reader accessibility. Further, titling as William I and redirecting from The Conqueror just might tell the casual reader something not previously known or appreciated concerning William's place in the line of sovereigns.Milkunderwood (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Re Minute Waltz: 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.Milkunderwood (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Now we've got to the crux of the issue. "Titling as William I and redirecting from The Conqueror just might tell the casual reader something not previously known or appreciated concerning William's place in the line of sovereigns." This misapprehends the purpose and nature of an article title. The title itself is not meant to educate, or correct past wrongs, or convey value judgments. The purpose of an article title is simply to identify the subject of the article. It's the content of the article, starting with the first sentence, that is meant to educate and inform. Why do we use William the Conqueror and Minute Waltz? Not because of the one's conquering skills, or because the other takes a minute to play. We use them because that's how people know and identify the subject. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, that makes perfect sense. IMO, this approach to article titling is one of the many attractive aspects of Wikipedia. MistyMorn (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it makes perfect sense if "the purpose of an article title is simply to identify the subject of the article." This is exactly where we disagree. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a serious encyclopedia, then some formal structure ought to be editorially imposed. I come back to the Oxford Dictionary's entry for "Moonlight Sonata" as an example - this entry is in lieu of aredirect, and simply explains the badly given (according to Oxford) nickname rather than being an entry on the sonata itself. But Wikipediadoes have redirects, which should be used very liberally. (BTW, again re "Minute Waltz", the best title for this would be simply Waltz, Op. 64, No. 1 (Chopin) rather than Waltz in D-flat major, Op. 64, No. 1 (Chopin), since the key should be given only in the lede, not in the title.) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, like the majority of users, I believe, I do not want to be "educated" by Wikipedia and its editors. We want quality encyclopaedic information. Your views about the 'William the Conqueror' title are not in keeping with general WP naming conventions. Is there really any substantial reason for us to depart from them, or distance ourselves, in the field of classical music? That's the question I've been asking myself. I honestly don't see it. Btw, I can't for the life of me remember the numbering of the Minute Waltz... MistyMorn (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure how to distinguish between an encyclopedia (or dictionary) providing quality information as opposed to being educational. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
While dictionaries and encyclopaedias certainly have a place in schools, they're not primarily school textbooks (apart from learners' dictionaries etc, which isn't the case here). MistyMorn (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But I wasn't referring to "schools". What I meant was Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of Music, New Grove Dictionary, etc. These are "educational" in the sense that they provide (hopefully) reliable information - and in an organized format. And I'm sure they each take their respective missions very seriously. But you are quite correct that this talk page is not the most appropriate place for abstract philosophy. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting an alternative:

Suggest developing and implementing analogous proposals suitable for the opening of the lede (rather than the title), thereby improving consistency of formal naming while avoiding any departure from usual WP process. MistyMorn (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Having "slept on it", I would also like to suggest using the 'revised' titling proposals as general guidance for those articles where WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply. MistyMorn (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I'm in no way against our promoting consistency in formal naming conventions. What concerns me is 'Where' and 'When' to implement.) MistyMorn (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Please allow me to indulge in abstract philosophy just once more, even though this is admittedly not the appropriate place for it:

Posit a reader who has come to Wikipedia to find information on any topic. What is this reader's jumping-off place? Is it not the searchbox at the upper right? This hypothetical reader has a word, or name, or a phrase, in mind, and types that into the search box. Here I suggest that the specific search entry will more often than not be at least slightly different from the actual title of the article wanted. When this frequently slightly different typed word, name or phrase is then searched for, hopefully a redirect has anticipated what was actually typed, and will automatically and immediately take our reader to the wanted page.

This is what is so marvelous about Wikipedia. You can be vague, semi-literate, dyslexic, whatever - and Wikipedia still does its best, by means of redirects, to help the reader find whatever s/he is looking for. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the title of an article is, so long as it is easily reachable by means of a redirect. If a reader types "william the conquerer", misspelling it, s/he is immediately and automatically taken to the wanted page - because there is a redirect from this misspelling. Or, sometimes there will not be an exact redirect. If I type "moonlite sonata" into the searchbox, Wikipedia asks me "Did you mean: moonlight sonata?" What a smart and helpful encyclopedia!

Now, since it does not matter in the slightest what the actual page title is, why not follow some sort of agreed-upon structure for titles? Why not, indeed, use the title "William I of England" - or "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)"? These titles put the individual king, or piece of music,in context of a line of kings, or a series of piano sonatas. They serve to reaffirm that context, and help to disabuse the reader of any misconception (or ignorance) of such context.

It has been argued that no one ever looks at how an article is titled. I don't believe that for a minute. No article title will disabuse a reader of any narrow conception if s/he doesn't look at it, or pay attention to it. But a properly framed contextual title can help to broaden that reader's horizon of understanding. Is this not a legitimate goal for any self-respecting encyclopedia? Milkunderwood(talk) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, since it does not matter in the slightest what the actual page title is, ... is also an argument for titling articles in a running numerical sequence, so that the Minute Waltz article might be called Article No. 3427698. Or maybe some randomly chosen but unique set of letters, like Jyrqdeprjtoxd. The redirects will always get the user to the page they want, problem solved.  :)
If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a serious encyclopedia, then some formal structure ought to be editorially imposed
  • To that, I would ask: Does anyone ever judge the seriousness or otherwise of Wikipedia by what one particular article or some group of articles happens to be titled? Only an unreconstructed snob would be like that. It's primarily the content that determines quality. Sure, the title has to be reasonable in all the circumstances, but in many cases that still leaves the field open to various options. Each option will have its merits and its demerits, and we as a community choose the one we prefer. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack, for bringing my poor phrasing to my attention. You're right - that phrase "does not matter in the slightest" is startling there, and its intent isn't explained until the next paragraph. I nearly always have problems expressing myself clearly.
To your second comment, I was really trying to compare Wikipedia to Britannica or other reference sources of similar reputation. You say it's "primarily the content that determines quality". No one could disagree with that. We might assume that the title is part of the "content", as you mean that word. Alternatively, you may have meant the text of the article beginning with the lede. And again I agree with your primarily. Not exclusively.
Maybe I am in fact the only reader who ever looks at article titles. To me, a title is part and parcel of the article, and is my initial introduction to it. So very definitely I do judge the seriousness and worthiness of an article, in small part, on how appropriate the title strikes me as being. Perhaps this is snobbery. In any event I feel that article titles do serve a useful function beyond that as mere identifiers, and when they help place the subject in context, they can also "help to broaden [a] reader's horizon of understanding".Milkunderwood (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Look at Gray's Anatomy (the textbook, not the TV series). It’s been in continuous publication since 1858, and no medical student in the anglosphere would be unfamiliar with it. Copies are in any half-decent medical library, and in many thousands of general reference public libraries and private collections throughout the world. It’s very highly esteemed, and it earned its reputation because of what’s in it – its content. But look at its title (not the one Gray gave it, admittedly, but the one that it’s borne since the early editions) and the questions ask themselves: Who is or was Gray? What sort of anatomy is he or she on about – human, fish, literary, what? How detailed is it? And so on and on. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of from the title alone is that it’s about anatomy, and not about the history of the xylophone. I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this, save that it’s probably not productive to get too concerned* with titles. As long as they’re not inaccurate, they’re reasonable, and they don’t violate any of WP’s rules or guidelines, they have a chance of acceptance. (* Somewhat concerned is good; too concerned is not. I’m not saying anyone here has gone too far, but it’s a possible danger area for certain character types, who tend to be well represented in these types of discussions. I include myself here. Btw, exactly where “too concerned” starts is an unknown quantity.)
I am not for a moment saying titles are trivial, unimportant or irrelevant. I’ve written quite a few articles, and I always try to make the title the best one I can. It’s the right thing to do, that’s the main thing; but also, there’s no point writing a truly outstanding article (and of course my articles are always of that type :) but spoiling it with a less than wonderful title. I don’t always get it right first go. First it was Konzertstück for Piano and Orchestra in F minor (Weber), then I moved it to Konzertstück in F minor for Piano and Orchestra (Weber), then to its current title Konzertstück in F minor (Weber). I’m sure other and possibly better possibilities exist. Nobody else seemed to think either of the first two titles needed changing, so I could just as easily have left it alone and nobody would have lost a moment’s sleep. But I felt it was worth tweaking on both occasions. Now I have completely lost my way, but felt it was worth recording my thoughts for posterity, while I still have thoughts. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolution and closure

We've had a long discussion, if everyone agrees I'd like to close this now and put the revised version of the text up on the page. As some of us have noticed, the existing text there is not particularly well laid out, and further changes will probably be necessary. These can be proposed separately in due course. But can we move on now? --Kleinzach 00:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I for one would certainly hope so. In the meantime I've now added something of a disclaimer to what had been labeled as my "alternative proposal", above, which it was never intended to be. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further proposals?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

While the original proposal discussion is over, I don't think the guideline at present is perfect. Further proposals could be made if anyone wants to devote the necessary time to it. --Kleinzach01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a detailed proposal, but I would suggest dropping the brackets around the composer. The "Name-of-work (Composer)" format may be fine for an index, but less appropriate for a WP article title. How about "Name-of-work by Composer"? For example, "Symphony No. 1 by Beethoven". MistyMorn (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
1) That's not the common name; 2) it contradicts wide-spread practice and 3) WP:DAB. -- Michael Bednarek(talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, suggestion withdrawn (sorry). MistyMorn (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Tequila (song)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Self-selection bias?

Latest comment: 12 years ago112 comments13 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
COMMONNAME — which you pipe to article titles — is simply not defined as I've pointed out elsewhere. --Kleinzach 09:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've now got bold and made requests at WT:MOS and WT:AT. MistyMorn (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, you won't have to put up with me joining in, anyway!. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


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)

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)
Adding my personal view: Beethoven's music never had anything to do with moonlight, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
What do you mean by "all these lines inserted in this topics?" ? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks - that's what I was trying to say. MistyMorn (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
I fail to see how either Dohn joe's or my own comments were off topic. MistyMorn (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is no grief here. The problems were resolved, and everybody has gone home. --Kleinzach 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

Why this discussion is relevant

Silly, trivial, or even masturbatory on a biblical scale... The fact remains we don't use alphanumeric titles. And that Wikipedia policy includes article titling. Coming professionally from a world where both titling and guidelines are seen as important, that doesn't altogether surprise me. Of course, almost any entry in WP:MOS could present a sitting target for satirical ridicule, but that doesn't in any way lessen the relevance of the style manual to the encyclopaedia. So, given that the classical music Wikiproject has decided to draw up some local guidelines with the laudable intention to simplify and harmonise titling conventions, it seems sensible to implement policy appropriately. In other words, WP:MUSICSERIES should not depart from the spirit of WP:AT (including WP:UCN) in the name of greater scholarly "precision" without enjoying broad consensus not limited to the locals. The changes made after the Eine Kleine discussion seem to me to be a genuine improvement. But since they don't touch on the key issue of commonly recognised nicknames, I don't think they go far enough. IMO, the imperative Do not include nicknames except when the work is almost exclusively known by its nickname amounts to instruction creep and is ultimately unfriendly to the general readership of Wikipedia. In this regard, Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony seems to me to be another useful test case. MistyMorn (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music)/Archive_1&oldid=1137425832"