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

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]

Hi all, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Titling of articles on cover songs that might be of interest to watchers of this page. Please take a look and let me know over there if you have any opinions on the topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to all! What is the naming convention regarding engineers? Because I've seen pages with "(audio engineer)", "(recording engineer)", "(sound engineer)", etc.. Would be great to have a consensus on this. Thank you. Kuragehime ଳ⋆.ೃ࿔*:･ 06:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed many people who are most commonly known as songwriters, but WP:BANDDAB doesn't list that as an option. Is the use acceptable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @162 etc.:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, @Caldorwards4:, @Sammi Brie:, @P Aculeius:, @Sergecross73:, @TonyTheTiger:, @RachelTensions: for further feedback. This issue arose in the WP:RM for Jeff Stevens (singer). My argument is that he should be at either "Jeff Stevens" or "Jeff Stevens (songwriter)", and 162 etc. opposed the (songwriter) parenthetical on the grounds that WP:BANDDAB says to use "musician". But a musician and songwriter are different things, and I've never heard them used interchangably since many musicians do not write songs, and many songwriters do not play instruments. There are also other articles that do use (songwriter), such as Tim Johnson (songwriter), Dave Gibson (American songwriter), etc.

tl;dr: should (songwriter) be an accepted parenthetical? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGERDAB is quite clear. Little reason to hold much discussion on the matter, IMO. Don't place much emphasis on WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are always some wrong dab names to point out. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: can you find me proof that "songwriter" and "musician" are used interchangably outside Wikipedia? That's my main beef here, that not all songwriters are musicians, and not all musicians are songwriters, so to conflate the two is objectively wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak as to why WP:SINGERDAB would be authoritative, I agree that songwriters aren't always going to be covered by "musician" or "singer" or "composer", and I see nothing wrong with using it if it's the most accurate descriptor. IAR may apply here, though in this case the rule may need to be changed—it shouldn't prohibit using the most useful disambiguator simply because someone didn't think of it before. P Aculeius (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "but it's not listed on WP:SINGERDAB" shouldn't hold people back. I don't recall seeing many (duo) disambiguators before WP:DUO somehow manifested itself out of nowhere a few years back, but now it's the norm for most if not all duos that need it (including the GA-class Trout Fishing in America (duo)). Between the precedent of WP:DUO and the fact that many other articles and categories already use (songwriter), I think it should be added as an option so it's clearer that it's acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this came through while I was at work and I forgot about it until just now. It doesn't come up in my editing much, but frankly I don't see any reason to discourage the use of "songwriter" as a disambiguator. There are artists for whom that would be an accurate descriptor, insofar as it would explain how they are best known. As to whether or not "songwriter" implies musician...I'm of the opinion that it does, and should, but apparently on-Wiki it is also used to designate lyricists, which I'm not sure I agree with. But which is a matter for another day... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to (songwriter) for individuals who are notable only as songwriters. As for Jeff Stevens specifically, he is also notable as a singer, and the (musician) tag is more accurate in his case. 162 etc. (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @P Aculeius: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: @162 etc.: per your consensus, I have WP:BOLDly added (songwriter) to the list of acceptable terms at WP:SINGERDAB. I think the consensus and common sense are enough to push this over the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a good idea. What isn't is limiting the available choices to whatever came to mind when the guideline was written, on the assumption they would cover all of the possibilities well. I can't say whether this will permanently resolve the issue, since guideline changes can become controversial even when they seem to make perfect sense. But one can hope! P Aculeius (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've reworded the entry to use "only known" as opposed to "primarily known", per my comment above. 162 etc. (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are producers disambiguated with (music producer) when the main article is record producer? I found about a 50-50 split between (record producer) and (music producer) historically, but lately, most pages have been moved to (music producer). At what point was using "music" determined the more common method of disambiguating producers? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, @Sergecross73: @TonyTheTiger: any feedback here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I have no idea honestly. Personally, I prefer the term "music producer" because I feel like it more generally applies to all music, not just records. But that's just my opinion that's never really been contested as far as I recall. I do agree that we should probably standardize and pick one for disambiguation purposes though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard "record producer" in wider use, and in fact, our article on the occupation has always been at record producer without being contested. It's a bit anachronistic, but so is calling a Netflix show a "TV series". And as much as that one bugs me, it's also something we do because it's widely accepted outside Wikipedia too. So I think there's a precedent for "record producer". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'm fine either way - its been less about feeling strongly about it, and more of one of those "well, you've got to pick one of them" type things. I'll use whichever one there is a consensus for moving forward. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. "Music producer" is correct, and widely used in sources. "Record producer" is correct, and widely used in sources. My personal preference is for "music producer", as it more literally describes the topic while still being WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't necessarily support a move of the Record producer article either. Status quo, while less than ideal, is probably best. 162 etc. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]