Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)

message: I've started a discussion here with regard to capitalising titles of written works, because I think we need some greater clarity. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref Article Title Format 

message: ===Input===
(This is all BessieMaelstrom (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think much of this will be accepted. It' a pity you don't italicize titles in it all.  In particular I very much doubt that changes like  "Dracula (1924 play) should be Dracula (Deane, Balderston play)" will be accepted if only because everyone has heard of 1924, but probably not many of Deane or Balderston.  Dates are used this way in other media and subject area, and generally are more helpful to the reader. For example, titling battles with disambiguating names of the combatants or commanders won't be popular.  Also, you have a very different idea of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which won't be popular.  Generally, I'd get more content editing experience before launching other complicated policy proposals - I see you've done at least one other.   Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't figure out how to make something be an internal link to an article, and only italicise the title section of the link. I have removed the links now, in favour of italicising, but am always happy to learn. (And yes, I did try to look it up.) Ref: "everyone has heard of 1924" - we're not identifying a year, though, we're identifying a theatrical work. Arguably, saying "Lloyd-Webber" to identify which adaptation of Phantom you're talking about is a method that is in more frequent usage than saying "1986". And, as above, the work can be reproduced in several different productions of one adaptation. Where there are multiples, the foundation of the two things is always going to be the underlying work: "Phantom of the Opera" will always be the thing in more frequent usage, and it isn't defined by a year, it's defined by writers. (Edited to add) Battles cannot be repeated. They are unique events. So I'm not sure I understand the comparison? -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On the last point, see Battle of Panipat, Sack of Rome, & Siege of Constantinople,  to name but three. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not reinterpretations of the same battle. They are separate events with the same name: it's a two-layered thing, and the dates identify the second layer. The various 'Phantoms' are all reinterpretations of the same original source, so that's a three-layered thing: the original source, the different adaptations of it, and then the different productions of each of those adaptations. The use of dates only works until two different adaptations have a production in the same year, as per The Wild Party (LaChiusa musical), and The Wild Party (Lippa musical), both based on the same original source, both produced on Broadway simultaneously. (Oh, I've just seen how to italicise these links. Excellent. I'll do that.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are separate events with the same name" - of course, but that makes no difference for our naming policy.  The Wild Party is a good example  - 8 works, only four of which are "related" by source/story.  Personally, I'd say the musicals should be  The Wild Party (2000 musical, LaChiusa), unless the musicals project has some particular convention. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are also multiple things by the same name here. The films are noted as films, and further by year, given that there's more than one film. Those specific films, like those specific battles, will never have their exact same source re-presented. Movie remakes have the same story but a new script. The source is not the same. Battles may be fought again, by the same sides, over the same thing, but they will not be exactly the same people, making the same moves. There is no material source which can be re-presented in its accurate entirety. The musicals, on the other hand, have a written libretto which can be re-presented, word-for-word (and some actions-for-actions, too, from stage directions). The exact same source can be re-staged. The continuity of that source material adds a third layer to this, and the disambiguation is required for that source, in the same way that the year of the film or the battle disambiguates the source. A production is not the source. Different productions of the same musical or play can be disambiguated within the article. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, for purposes of a general readership encyclopedia, the current naming system is easier for people to search and understand.  As the saying goes, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  This is the case here: BessieMaelstrom is a writer, so she wants to emphasize writers' names.  But that is not how most people will search for a play or film.  Unusual situations like Wild Party can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I want a system that makes the most sense, which is to disambiguate a theatre work by something that is directly connected to it, not one step removed. Surely people will search based on title? And then most would, I imagine, just be guessing about year, whereas they might have a shot at recognising “Lloyd-Webber” whether or not they know much about theatre, don’t you think? (Also, note that I am supportive of using years instead of authors for films, because that does make more sense.) —- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Am taking my time to consider all this, and will reply properly - but I wanted to say thank you for spending your time going through this in detail. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Titles: Plays, Musicals, Operas 

message: (This is all BessieMaelstrom (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Input

message: And finally: as with all such properties, the original source should be the regarded as the primary topic, and subsequent adaptations of any kind should be disambiguated. Excellent examples of this are on the film naming page, but to be specific:
* The article for the novel The Phantom of the Opera is correctly titled as the source material and therefore primary topic
* The musical called The Crinoline Girl is correctly titled as there is no other candidate for that title
* Mary Poppins (book series) is correctly titled because, although it is the primary source, it's only the title of the very first book, and the article is about the whole series of books. Mary Poppins (film) is correctly titled, but Mary Poppins (musical) will likely be titled Mary Poppins (Fellowes, Sherman Bros, Stiles & Drewe musical) some day - because come the year 2066, when the books go out of copyright, you can bet there will be new stage adaptations.
(Am never sure how to tag myself when the thing I posted got split up into multiple sources, and I didn't intend it to look like I scribed a finished product. I'm still discovering Wikipedia editing. This is all here to re-open the discussion, that's all. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and secondary topics 

message: :I don't think much of this will be accepted. It' a pity you don't italicize titles in it all.  In particular I very much doubt that changes like  "Dracula (1924 play) should be Dracula (Deane, Balderston play)" will be accepted if only because everyone has heard of 1924, but probably not many of Deane or Balderston.  Dates are used this way in other media and subject area, and generally are more helpful to the reader. For example, titling battles with disambiguating names of the combatants or commanders won't be popular.  Also, you have a very different idea of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which won't be popular.  Generally, I'd get more content editing experience before launching other complicated policy proposals - I see you've done at least one other.   Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't figure out how to make something be an internal link to an article, and only italicise the title section of the link. I have removed the links now, in favour of italicising, but am always happy to learn. (And yes, I did try to look it up.) Ref: "everyone has heard of 1924" - we're not identifying a year, though, we're identifying a theatrical work. Arguably, saying "Lloyd-Webber" to identify which adaptation of Phantom you're talking about is a method that is in more frequent usage than saying "1986". And, as above, the work can be reproduced in several different productions of one adaptation. Where there are multiples, the foundation of the two things is always going to be the underlying work: "Phantom of the Opera" will always be the thing in more frequent usage, and it isn't defined by a year, it's defined by writers. (Edited to add) Battles cannot be repeated. They are unique events. So I'm not sure I understand the comparison? -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On the last point, see Battle of Panipat, Sack of Rome, & Siege of Constantinople,  to name but three. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not reinterpretations of the same battle. They are separate events with the same name: it's a two-layered thing, and the dates identify the second layer. The various 'Phantoms' are all reinterpretations of the same original source, so that's a three-layered thing: the original source, the different adaptations of it, and then the different productions of each of those adaptations. The use of dates only works until two different adaptations have a production in the same year, as per The Wild Party (LaChiusa musical), and The Wild Party (Lippa musical), both based on the same original source, both produced on Broadway simultaneously. (Oh, I've just seen how to italicise these links. Excellent. I'll do that.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are separate events with the same name" - of course, but that makes no difference for our naming policy.  The Wild Party is a good example  - 8 works, only four of which are "related" by source/story.  Personally, I'd say the musicals should be  The Wild Party (2000 musical, LaChiusa), unless the musicals project has some particular convention. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are also multiple things by the same name here. The films are noted as films, and further by year, given that there's more than one film. Those specific films, like those specific battles, will never have their exact same source re-presented. Movie remakes have the same story but a new script. The source is not the same. Battles may be fought again, by the same sides, over the same thing, but they will not be exactly the same people, making the same moves. There is no material source which can be re-presented in its accurate entirety. The musicals, on the other hand, have a written libretto which can be re-presented, word-for-word (and some actions-for-actions, too, from stage directions). The exact same source can be re-staged. The continuity of that source material adds a third layer to this, and the disambiguation is required for that source, in the same way that the year of the film or the battle disambiguates the source. A production is not the source. Different productions of the same musical or play can be disambiguated within the article. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, for purposes of a general readership encyclopedia, the current naming system is easier for people to search and understand.  As the saying goes, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  This is the case here: BessieMaelstrom is a writer, so she wants to emphasize writers' names.  But that is not how most people will search for a play or film.  Unusual situations like Wild Party can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I want a system that makes the most sense, which is to disambiguate a theatre work by something that is directly connected to it, not one step removed. Surely people will search based on title? And then most would, I imagine, just be guessing about year, whereas they might have a shot at recognising “Lloyd-Webber” whether or not they know much about theatre, don’t you think? (Also, note that I am supportive of using years instead of authors for films, because that does make more sense.) —- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Am taking my time to consider all this, and will reply properly - but I wanted to say thank you for spending your time going through this in detail. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Should we add a section as to the standard disambiguating words to be used in titles? For example now we have poetry book and poetry collection for the same type of books. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through a few categories, it seems that "poetry collection" is the usual form. I've moved Manasi but I'm not sure if a new section is warranted here. It doesn't look to be a widespread problem, or even a problem at all, and I'm always wary of WP:Instruction creep. - Station1 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Update: I've found only 3 other articles on WP using "poetry book", all created last year by the same editor as Manasi, so I've moved all 3. Station1 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Does it need a disambiguator? If the treatise's title is Flower Mirror, you can use just that, with a hatnote on each article. Otherwise, I do see "treatise" used on a couple of articles in that category. Station1 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  —  AjaxSmack  16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard disambiguating words 

message: What would be a good disambiguator for an agricultural treatise from 1688 (花鏡)?  I am only disambiguating it from the base name (Flower mirror).  "Treatise"?  Never seen that as a disambiguator.  "Book"?  Seems to be frowned on by some here and sounds a little weird for this one.  —  AjaxSmack  15:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it need a disambiguator? If the treatise's title is Flower Mirror, you can use just that, with a hatnote on each article. Otherwise, I do see "treatise" used on a couple of articles in that category. Station1 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  —  AjaxSmack  16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Redux