Wikipedia talk:Article titles

RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles

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.

Clear consensus to use the shorter version.--GRuban (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

When a song or album is the only song or album to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, should the article title of the notable song or album include the artist name?

Some songs and albums are the only song or album with its name to meet notability guidelines and have an article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page per MOS:DABMENTION. The current situation on the inclusion of artist names in article titles is inconsistent. A few examples of no artist names in article titles include Umbrella (song), Pillowtalk (song), and Anti (album); they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, although there are other non-notable songs/albums of the same name listed at Umbrella (disambiguation)#Songs, Pillow talk (disambiguation)#Songs, and Anti#Music respectively. A few examples of artist names in article titles include Chandelier (Sia song), Blackstar (David Bowie song), and Title (Meghan Trainor album); similarly, they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, but Chandelier (song), Blackstar (song) and Title (album) redirect to disambiguation pages, where other non-notable songs/albums of the same name are listed. WP:PRECISION states According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. WP:NCM states Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). The dispute arises on whether non-notable songs and albums that lack standalone articles can be considered "article topics". I think we can all agree that the current inconsistency is not ideal, and I am starting a request for comment for a result that should apply to most usual cases. sst✈ 15:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use the shorter version There's no need to include the artist name if that is the only notable recorded work. If an article is subsequently created for another work of the same name, then the disambiguation can be specified in the title.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version - 3Family6's explanation above sums up my thoughts exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: @Sergecross73: what if, as is so often the case, there are two songs: (1) One is a hit single from the 1960s mentioned in an album article but (2) is a non-charting digital download with the same title from 2015 with a giant article. Should the artist name be removed from the one which has the standalone article even if the one without the article has a better claim to notability? In other words, are songs an exception from normal en.wp WP:DISAMBIGUATION practice that we do not ambiguate articles simply because they are standalone rather than part of larger articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood what your point is. I thought my arguments fall under what's given at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. I'm arguing that if a song is standalone, but other topics by the same name exist, that the song should be disambiguated as "Song" (song), as opposed to disambiguating it as "Song" (Singer's song). By no means am I saying that it should just be "Song" when other topics of the name "Song" exist.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I just want to note that we have had several RFCs on this issue in the past... the last one took place about a year ago (if I remember correctly). While I don't mind revisiting the issue (it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed since then), those previous RFCs (and the consensus that emerged from them) are what set the our current practices. I urge everyone to search the archives (for this page, for other relevant guideline pages, as well as the Village Pump) to familiarize yourselves with those previous discussions. It will save everyone a lot of needless repetition of effort. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is already consensus on this specific issue, I don't see it in RM discussions. sst✈ 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version per 3Family6; also, we can always move a page if circumstances change. ^{Recruited by the feedback request service} -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Precision is better than ambiguity – E. g. Pillowtalk (song) could mean any of several songs by that title that are listed in WP articles. Why not disambiguate with artist name rather than incomplete disambiguation in such cases? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Dicklyon But there are two song articles with the title "Pillow Talk." What's being discussed here is the case where there is only one song. If there is only one article with a certain title, why do we need to disambiguate more than needed?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was offered as an example above; perhaps someone made a new article since then? Or one has a space and one doesn't, in which case disambiguation is still needed, and way better than distinguishing to tiny differences. How about Umbrella (song), then? I see five other songs, but not with their own articles? Disambiguating would be good there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• KiSS Keep It Short and Simple. Always if possible. If you have a strong reason to make titles longer and more complicated feel free to do so, but add only few words (only 1 if u can) to avoid disambiguation. 100% agree with 3family6. Kind regards from Valdarno.  Klaas `Z4␟` V 09:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - there seems to be some confusion here between notability and whether there's an article or not. I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. However, others are saying "wait for the article to be created". That's a different issue. Some notable songs don't yet have articles, but certainly could (because they're notable). Other notable songs nonetheless redirect to the album on which they are contained, for WP:NOPAGE reasons. In those cases, per WP:PARTIALDAB, the full artist name should be spelled out even where there is only one song article of that name on the Wiki, because the other notable songs of the same name will be listed at the dab page, and the album or redlink is a legitimate target for that title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. That does not seem to be the case currently at RM discussions. sst✈ 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Right. I hope I can be recognized as part of that "too many" that would prefer precision to ambiguity even when only one of the songs has an article. The "shortest possible name" approach puts zero value on precision; I think this is not a good way to balance the WP:CRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

      But Dicklyon, why do we need to do this to achieve precision for a notable song vs a non-notable song, when we are appending (song) on the end, but there is apparently no need to do so if the song is already primary topic for the whole concept. For example, there may be some non-notable song somewhere called Hey Jude, yet we don't feel the need to append (Beatles song) on to the main article Hey Jude. But when it comes to something like Thriller (song), supposing there were non-notable album tracks with the same name, you are telling us we should rename the song Thriller (Michael Jackson song) because of precision. I'm not sure why the Hey Jude is precise, whereas the Thriller (song) is not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

      Well, apparently you don't need to, since most editors responding here are happy with the shorter ambiguous title. I just happen to think that precision is better than ambiguity. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

      I too think that precision, consistency and lack of ambiguity is better than shorter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between notability and whether a subject has an article, I agree. I just think that, unless there is an active link, such as redirect or something, there's no need to disambiguate more than "song" or "album" as there is only one article, unless the creation of another article is imminent. For instance, there was no need to disambiguate Stickman's Tunnel Vision album more than "album" until I created the Tunnel Rats album of the same name years later.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question. Does the same apply when a song or album article is the only topic across WP (i.e., not just among songs/albums) with an active link? So, if we have a dab page with multiple entries, and only one of them has a bluelink, should that article or the dab page get the basename? See Gotta Have It for an example. Dohn joe (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• There has been established a hard won consensus that disambiguation terms should generally only be as precise as needed to disambiguate one existing article from other existing articles. I don't think as a general rule there should be made an exception from this for articles about songs. So if no other article has the same name as the song title, the article about the song should not have a disambiguation term. If only articles about things that are not songs have the same name, then the article about the song should have the disambiguation term (song). And if there are articles about songs with the same name then it should have the disambiguation term ([artist name] song). The only case where I can think of where it might be reasonable to deviate from this rule would be when there is only one song that has an article about it, but there is doubt whether that song is the primary topic for that name. If a large proportion of the people who search for the given song title are actually looking for another song than the one they end up being directed to, then it might be more useful to have them directed to a disambiguation page, where they can instead find links to articles about the albums where the songs of that title appear on. TheFreeloader (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  What "hard won consensus" are you referring to? Please could you point to the place where this was established. And establishing policies on Wikipedia are not a question of winning or losing, simply what is best for the readership. If it was that hard to win the consensus, perhaps it wasn't the correct one to start with? On your specific point, again, I would say that it is not a question of whether there's an article on the subject, but on whether it's notable. At MOS:DABRL we are given a fictitious example of a Flibbygibby (architecture), a notable concept which appears on the Flibbygibby disambig page, but doesn't yet have an article. Now let's suppose that this is the notable Flibbygibby (Kylie Minogue song), that doesn't yet have an article. Would we call some other song Flibbygibby (song), knowing all the while that there's a Kylie song with the exact same name awaiting an article?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  It is consensus because it is the policy. One of the 5 naming criteria is conciseness, which is specified as meaning: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". This is a hard won consensus because it is a policy that has been up for discussion many times, and have been fought hard over. But, of course, if you think this policy needs to change to benefit our readership, then you are welcome to start a new discussion to change it. Consensuses can change. About your examples, I think it comes down to whether those subjects are primary topics for those names. As I said above, I think there would be a reasonable case for having the disambiguation term "(song)" redirect to a disambiguation page if it is not clear that the song that happens to have an article is the primary topic among songs of that name. In that situation is would be useful for readers to have easy access to links to the albums or artists also associated with other songs of that name.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the Kylie Minogue song is notable, create a stub for it. Until sources are looked for, we don't know that it is notable. bd2412 T 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't work. A stub is an article. Create a stub article after one has found sources enough to demonstrate notability, or all one is doing is creating pointless work for CSD/PROD admins, or for AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would generally propose that if an article on an album exists, but songs on the album are not individually notable, then redirects should be made from the song titles to the album. If the song titles are ambiguous, redirect from a disambiguated song title to the album. bd2412 T 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: that means we have to create stubs for every top 10 single from 1930s to 1990? That's thousands of stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Yes, that's thousands of stubs. So? If the songs are notable (and if chart placement is the criteria for notability), then we absolutely should have stubs for all of these, which editors will come along and develop over time. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: why? what's the point? There won't be any more info than in the album article. I don't think you're saying that whether we cover a topic in a stub or in an article mention affects that topic's notability, no? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: If we don't have the stub, then we should have a redirect from the song title to the album. Either way, the reader searching for that particular topic should find what they're looking for. bd2412 T 13:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the primary topic aspect of it. There are lots of songs that are performed or popularized as covers and renditions so the disambiguation to the original artist would add more confusion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and follow the existing guidelines based on topic and article content not article title for WP:Disambiguation, don't rewrite this to make a special exception. The body of the encyclopedia has a giant bias to turning out semi-notable article stubs for WP:RECENT media trivia. 1,561x 2015 songs to 128x 1955 songs. This does not mean that 2015 songs (or any other media product) are 10x more notable, it just means we are accumulating fluff on recent topics and not covering properly older ones - under that many 1950s-1990s songs will exist only as mentions of singles in album articles. Which is where existing WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines come in. Disambiguate by topic, not by stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (i.e, use short version). I agree with virtually every rationale point above for why. (sorry, I know that's a WP:PERX, but I also know that any closer knows how carefully I consider these things, and reiterating all of the above in my own idiom would be a long post that wouldn't really add anything).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  Potential exception for cases where the majority of an artist's notable-song articles are disambiguated, per WP:CONSISTENCY, an issue Blueboar raised below. I'm not 100% convinced of that one, but it's worth discussion perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Use shorter version. Unnecessary disambigs may trick readers into believing we have content on another possible subject with the same name, which I find pointless. Not to mention that it makes internal linking unnecessarily more difficult. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My understanding is that it is supposed to be about content of articles not titles of articles. Especially for songs, disambiguation is only going to be a help to readers. Primary topic is a different consideration. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use shortest title possible per WP:CONCISE. There is no need for song or album titles to be treated differently from other articles. As 3family6 explained, we can always move articles title if it's necessary, but oftentimes it's not. Calidum ¤ 03:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use the reasonably shorter title per WP:CONCISE and everything that 3family6, Sergecross, Calidum, and others have said on the matter. WP:NCM states to only use further DABs when needed, and they clearly aren't needed for instances where there's only one topic notable enough for a standalone article. People aren't likely to search for non-notable topics over those worth own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Different opinion. It really makes no difference which format is used. If there is only one song called XYZ then whether it is at XYZ or XYZ (Foo song) really doesn't matter providing it is significantly or only associated with the one artist. The problem is the insistent and unnecessary pointy moves - in either direction, including PT RM nominations, i.e. don't move something unless it must be moved, not because it's your opinion it should be moved. I am not opposed, nor wish to change, any of the guidelines mentioned, save that WP:NCM should be strengthened so those that think it doesn't say when there are two or more titles with the same name disambiguate by adding the artists' name cannot argue anymore. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• A consideration no one has raised... Consistency can be a factor... If lots of other article titles on songs by a given artist are disambiguated, we may wish to continue that pattern of disambiguation even in the titles that don't strictly need it. There are no absolutes here. Good article titles are a balance of all our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse Blueboar's comments. Consistency (and stability) should be factored in. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar: In light of your rationale here, you may wish to add this general point to this RfC, since I'm not sure anyone else raised it, but it's quite salient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• If we only have one article on a song by that name, it is by default the WP:PTOPIC and basically gets to choose what to be called. --Izno (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  Izno (talk · contribs) but that's the opposite of policy, see hurricane? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: Please illustrate. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. --Izno (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I mean per WP:DISAMBIGUATION if we had no article at hurricane we wouldn't move Hurricane (song) to Hurricane. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has ever suggested that. That's what WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is for. This RfC is about when there is only one notable song/album with a given name. Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use the shorter version, and place hat notes to the dab page where necessary. As others have said, titles ought to be as concise as possible, and no more precise than necessary to distinguish from other articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use the shorter version We should keep it simple. When the article title is already descriptive enough that it couldn't be confused with other articles, there's no point in adding the Artist's name. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I say keep it short and leave out the artist name unless absolutely necessary to distinguish from another song article. Song's notability for stand-alone article is established with the existence of said article--if it wasn't notable enough, the article shouldn't/wouldn't exist. We have hatnotes and disambiguation pages for the off chance that the reader would be looking for a different song. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Sanity check: should Let It Go (EP) allow readers to find the 2014 English-language EP by James Bay, or should they be directed to the Korean song "Naege mushimhan deut chagabgiman han nimam nan / Jal moreul gotman gata niga nan eoryeoweo." ? Some of the comments above are overturning the principle that rather than we lead people to real content on the real world (driven for example by what is notable in WP:RS) to a view of a limited reality where only what titles we determine exist as standalone stubs should determine what we allow readers to look for. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source for Wikipedia, and now we're to determine what exists outside Wikipedia by how we bundle or fork content into standalone titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• If there are multiple songs with the same title, some form of disambiguation is needed regardless of whether only one song has a standalone article. There is no need for the sole article to be parenthetically disambiguated with the artist's name — but if it is not, it should have a hatnote to the disambiguation page (assuming there are entries there for the other songs linking to the respective album or artist as appropriate). Another approach would be to create redirects for one or more of the other songs and disambiguate all with the artist name and redirect the "X (song)" title to the disambiguation page as R from incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version, but with a hatnote per the above comment. I do not see why this RfC was made about songs since it could work for pretty much anything (e.g. persons).

I see comments to the effect that DAB parenthesis should be used for precision even when no DAB is needed; or more weakly that if DAB parentheses are needed, we could as well make them long and precise. Well, that debate is outside the scope of this RfC, and current guidelines are against it. I see merit in the argument, though I personnally would oppose such a change, but I strongly oppose pushing it through a remote RfC on a specific subtopic.

Excluding this, the only argument for the longer version is that a reader could end up on Foo (song) about a song by Artist1 which does not mention a song with the same title by Artist2. This is a real concern, but it is better addressed by a hatnote, which we should have anyways (if we decided to use Foo (song by Artist1), it should still have a DAB hatnote). Of course this only applies if there is an appropriate target (in that case, the DAB page). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Names of songs and titles of short stories

Re: Names of songs and titles of short stories. Why do these not have any quotation marks in their Wikipedia article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Proper names other than names of persons

The policy says to use reliable sources in determining the title of an article about a person. Shouldn't this approach apply to all proper nouns (a/k/a proper names)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finell (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 April 2016

RFC regarding COMMONNAME and MOS

Please comment at WP:VPP#RfC: MOS vs COMMONNAME. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Genderqueer article to Non-binary gender

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Genderqueer#Requested move 4 June 2016. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)