Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

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.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

WP:BANDDAB

How many editors are really that set against (band) for boy bands and girl bands? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a forum. And "Naming conventions (music)" is a guideline, not a policy to be enforced. It's ironic that people believe that Speed (South Korean group) is ambiguous because of the multiple meanings of group (and not because "Speed (South Korean group)" has no other uses in other topics), yet they don't seem to be very aware that band is equally ambiguous and vague than group. Boy bands and girl groups are not bands according to the most basic definitions. This is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on WP:RMC, this band/group distinction is a problem. I, for one, would be in favour of getting rid of both in favour of "musical group". It would require a lot of renames, though. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well and nice to cite the official dictionary definition of "band", or at least the versions of it which can have "a band have to be playing their own instruments themselves, and can't hire session musicians to do it for them" read into the text even though it isn't actually there — but the simple fact is, in reality the "band vs. group" distinction stated here simply does not track with the way the words are actually used in the real world. The very fact that boy bands are called boy bands, and not boy groups, is in and of itself proof of that — and even with girl groups, the implication of that term has much less to do with observing a semantic distinction between "bands" and "groups" and much more to do with g-g alliteration. Real people in the real world simply do not use the words to imply the distinction that's implied by BANDDAB; they use the words completely interchangeably without regard to whether the instrumental backing is being played by the "official" band members themselves or by hired session hands or producers. I'd also support IP's suggestion of kiboshing that distinction in favour of "musical group" across the board — but they're also right that a lot of page moves would be necessary if we go in that direction. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Groups / Bands

"(group)", "(band)", "(musical group)", what should it be? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Per WP:BANDDAB et al., a supplementary page that I wrote and got approved through RFC, and that was later merged here:

Use "(band)" when the musical ensemble members perform by playing musical instruments, for example Garbage (band) or Town & Country (band).
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. This includes all non-performing boy bands (e.g. One Direction, BTS, and Wanna One) and girl groups (e.g. Spice Girls, Morning Musume, and Blackpink), for example TLC (group), Red Velvet (group), or RD (group)

The examples provided above were an example of how inconsistent the disambiguation parentheses were before 2015 when this was written. The "when the musical ensemble" clause was the only logical solution I found to comprehend why RD (group) is at "RD (group)" while Garbage (band) is at "Garbage (band)". Since then, editors have had conflicts about when and why "(group)" should be used instead of "(band)", most notably at pages related to South Korean groups, groups known to be boy bands and girl groups (terms that are the key point of the conflict). The most common excuse to not use "group" is because "group" is vague:

RD (group) → (financial group)? (art group)? (political group)?

But that's a poor rationale:

For example, Kathleen Kennedy (producer) → film producer? record producer? video game producer?
Kamal (director) → theatre director? CEO? school director?
Stephen Andrews (artist) → make-up artist? plastic artist? musician? sculptor?
Tim Sullivan (athlete) → Track and field mentions several disciplines.

As you can see "vague" disambiguation exists, not only in music. Band itself is vague, but as people are associating more and more the term "band" with "musical band", Wikipedians don't complain about it. The idea here is not going to the extreme like Red Cross with Imperial Portraits (Fabergé egg) does. How many "Red Cross with Imperial Portraits" exist in the world? Just one, but people who supported that thought that "Red Cross with Imperial Portraits" would be more confusing.

The discussions in particular (I know about) are Talk: BTS/Archive 2#Requested move 8 December 2018 and Talk:2AM (band)#Requested move 21 February 2021, which leads to the initial question. Is "(group)" bad and should be excluded, is "(band)" better and the most viable solution, or every article should use the neutral and concise "(musical group)", as suggested by the two users above. Our article is at Musical ensemble and practically the following are as viable as any other option: "(music group)", "(musical group)", "(music band)", "(musical band)". Also, should we completely disappear other alternatives like "(duo)", "(vocal ensemble)", "(jazz ensemble)", "(orchestra)", etc? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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.

I declare this discussion closed by creating a new WP page called WP:GROUPDAB. -St3095 ^(?) 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I, however, and for the record, I'm disappointed about how editors are always complaining about things over and over again, in multiple places, yet they don't even attempt to fix things. 5 years ago I was proactive and requested to change this vaguely written guideline because an editor that I won't mention was gaming the system and moving pages around because the guideline specifically said "Only when necessary" understanding that as "if two songs of the same name exist, one with an article, one without it, disambiguate both of them." After several months I realized no one else would take the initiative. 5 years later I see things are still the same. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace (band) and (group) with (musical group). As seen in the discussions, "band" has its detractors when it comes to describing non-instrumentalists, and "group" is vague and not immediately associated with music. It's unlikely that Foo (band) and Foo (group) would sufficiently disambiguate anyway, so the two labels can be merged into one. I also believe that the label (musical group) accurately describes the topic without making any implications regarding instruments, which was a concern with 2AM (band) et al. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this level of instruction creep - these terms are, by and large, synonymous in different times and places, yet in other places and times may not be entirely. (For example, John Lennon had said that the Beatles, at the time they existed, according to England-terminology, were a group and not band, because 'band' indicated matching bands, or Glenn Miller style bands ('big bands' in America). Therefore, there should be flexability allowed, and it should determined on a case by case basis. And, unless there is a particularly strong argument for why any particular term should not be used in a particular case, then all terms ought be acceptable (with exception: groups that exclusively sing should not be called bands, with 'boy bands' being the exception; boy bands are not true bands, but boy band is what they are called, so they can be the alliterative boy counterpart to 'girl groups'). Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strict (uniform) policy per firejuggler; a guideline to use "(musical group)" where there is contention over other options seems like an excellent one. – SJ + 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firejuggler86 and Sj: Oppose...what? The main question is ""(group)", "(band)", "(musical group)", what should it be?". Whatever I said after it is an explanation of why I opened the RM. "Opposing" won't change the current status quo and users will still attempt to use RM to change "band" to "group", and people will still oppose "group" due to its alleged vagueness (regardless if the RM is individual or collective). The writing still there but it needs to be adjusted and it could be rewritten as "use either (band) or (group) according to how the musical group is described by third-party sources." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes -- I like your language. "Use (band) or (group) or equivalent according to ..." – SJ + 20:26, 15 April 2021 (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.

Where is the discussion to add (single album) dab category?

Looking Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music)/Archive_3 around 11 March 2019 I cannot see the discussion for this change 11 March 2019 addition of (single album). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have now found it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_58#"Single_Album". This was the grounds for the change 11 March 2019 above. Was and is there consensus for this? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Broadway songs do not require a standalone song article to be considered in dab and titling discussions

Does anyone disagree? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to deviate from the longstanding naming convention at WP:SONGDAB, which was established following this 2016 RfC. 162 etc. (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]