Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (music) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 4 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

An earlier unreleased recording of a pop song surpassing the official release

Watchers of this page may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Karma (2024 song)#Requested move 17 April 2024 older ≠ wiser 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that an artist releases music under multiple aliases, should their name or one of their aliases take title precendence?

In particular, Keith Rankin of Death's Dynamic Shroud has released a great deal of music under the solo project Giant Claw (the current title of his Wikipedia page), but has also solo-produced several death's dynamic shroud mixtapes to the point that his releases under that (group) alias rival his number of releases as Giant Claw. As he is established as a primary member of DDS in addition to these solo releases, should his article remain under the title "Giant Claw" or be revised to his name? Psidey (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best handled case-by-case. Ultimately, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule any naming convention that we write in here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for boy bands

There seems to be a huge disconnect between what is listed in this naming convention guideline and what is actually out there in the wild.

WP:BANDDAB states the naming convention for non-instrument playing musical ensembles is to:
Use "(group)" when the musical ensemble members do not perform by playing musical instruments, the members are mainly vocalists, and other people perform by playing musical instruments.

Now, let's look at what the boy band articles are actually named, in practice:

I looked at the top 5 most-populated categories in Category:Boy bands by nationality
- Category: South Korean boy bands - Of the 101 articles that use a disambiguator, 79 are disambiguated with "band", and only 22 with "group" (78% use "band")
- Category: Japanese boy bands - Of the 20 articles that use a disambiguator, 16 are disambiguated with "band", and only 4 with "group" (80% use band)
- Category: American boy bands - Of 37 articles that use a disambiguator, 27 are disambiguated with "band", and only 10 with "group" (73% use band)
- Category: Taiwanese boy bands - Of 8 articles that use a disambiguator, 7 are disambiguated with "band", zero disambiguated with "group". (100% use band)
- Category: Chinese boy bands - Of 6 articles that use a disambiguator, 5 are disambiguated with "band", 1 is disambiguated with "group". (83% use band)

Overall, of the five categories I checked, 78% of boy band articles that require a disambiguation are using "band".

It seems like, while "group" is the de-jure disambiguator for non-instrument-playing boy bands, in practice, the widely accepted convention is to use "band". And I know what you're thinking, "some boy bands play instruments!", well, not these ones - you can check for yourselves, these are all (or almost all) singing/dancing bands, not instrument bands.

So, where do we go from here? Do we start the process of bringing those "band" articles into "group" naming convention? Do we update the naming convention to match what is most common in actual practice? Do we just leave everything as the status-quo and hope it all works itself out in the end?

Thoughts? RachelTensions (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that girl groups don't have the same issue - they almost universally use "group" as their disambiguator.

I think part of the disconnect is because the terminology is "boy band" vs. "girl group" - the more natural disambiguation for "boy band" is "band" because that word is already part of what that class of musical ensemble is commonly known as. The opposite is true for for "girl group" - using the "group" disambiguator is natural because "group" is part of that class of musical ensemble's common name. RachelTensions (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion and pushback on this. Consensus seems to be that "band" is just as accurate for a vocal group. See here, and here. 162 etc. (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I had also proposed that we just use "musical group" for everything and that didn't take off. See the 2021 discussion at the top of this talkpage. 162 etc. (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've seen those big giant page move proposals in my travels.

I also saw the discussion from 2021 but it doesn't seem like the loop was actually closed... it would be a lot simpler to codify what is already the de-facto naming convention for boy bands, and then discuss moving the ~35 articles that currently use "group", versus continuing to use "group" and try to move the ~135 articles that use "band" to bring them in line with the "group" naming convention. RachelTensions (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus that per common usage and practice the disamb for a Boy Band should be a (band). See Special:Diff/1265737089 for my update to WP:GDAB. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the naming convention for disambiguating boy bands be updated to be "(band)" instead of "(group)"? RachelTensions (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Yes - Approximately 78% of boy band articles already use "(band)" when a disambiguation is necessary, despite "(group)" being the prescribed disambiguator for musical ensembles that do not play instruments in this naming convention (WP:BANDDAB).
With such a large amount of boy bands already using "(band)" as the disambiguator despite "(group)" being the disambiguator per this naming convention, it demonstrates that "(band)" is the most natural method of disambiguation for boy bands. Not modifying the naming convention to be "(band)" to be used to disambiguate boy groups would mean that almost 80% of boy band articles are out of line with the naming convention.
If almost 80% of articles are following a de facto naming convention that is contrary to what the de jure naming convention is, does the de jure naming convention still hold any weight for those articles? I don't think so – I think it indicates that the de jure naming convention isn't intuitive or natural for that subset of articles.
See here for WP:RFCBEFORE attempt at a discussion that shows the breakdown of how I arrived at the 78% number. RachelTensions (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the article itself is called boy band, not boy group (which redirects to boy band), which is my main reason for arguing this viewpoint. On the other hand, girl group is the name of the article on Wikipedia. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think “band” is the most intuitive disambiguator for boy bands given the word is already included in name of that class of musical ensemble. That’s demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of boy band articles (~80% of them) have already naturally settled on using “band”, not “group”, when disambugation is necessary.

Girl groups, on the other hand, almost exclusively use “group” as a disambiguator, again, because it’s the most intuitive way to describe that type of musical ensemble: it’s already in the name. RachelTensions (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I don't think it should vary from how we'd disambiguate a rock/blues/whatever genre band just because their music is stylistically different. That, and the whole boy band thing... Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - "band" is the common term for a musical group, plus it's right there in the name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think. WP:GDAB is a bit oddly structured, with a global statement that (band) is the most common disambiguator and then a list of "other methods" of disambiguation, which include the strangely absolute rule about (group). Suggest that the best patch might be to replace the current last sentence of the (group) paragraph with something like However, if a group is commonly referred to as a "band", even if it is an exclusively vocal group, "band" is preferred as a disambiguator. -- Visviva (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italics vs. quotation marks in titles

WP:NCMUSIC currently reads "Non-generic names are italicised, except those of individual dances, songs, hymns, lieder and arias (e.g. "The Blue Danube",..." Looking at Category:Orchestral marches, some "individual" titles some are italicised (e.g. Crown Imperial (march), Marche slave) and some are not (e.g. Funeral March of a Marionette, The Liberty Bell (march)). Based on the conventions, which is preferred, or are there differences between these examples that I'm missing? — AjaxSmack 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCMUSIC has to be read together with MOS:TITLE which makes a distinction between MOS:MAJORWORK, also called MOS:ITALICTITLE, and MOS:MINORWORK, also called MOS:QUOTETITLE. WP:NCMUSIC refers to those guidelines. IMO "Crown Imperial" is a short work and more like a song and should not be in italics, but Marche slave is a substantial tone poem and should be. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]