Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ref Article Title Format

[edit]

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)[reply]

Article Titles: Plays, Musicals, Operas

[edit]

Input

[edit]

(This is all BessieMaelstrom (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I'm a published playwright and librettist. Here is some industry info that should clarify this subject.

In general, plays, musicals and operas can and should be treated as books with regard to article titles. They are equally proper nouns, and thus "lowercase second and subsequent words" does not apply to them.

Craft & commercial exploitation

[edit]

Some written works are crafted to facilitate reproduction through performance, whether live or recorded. The work of a writer in this instance is regarded by the creative industries in two ways:

  • the actual craft, the work of writing the property (eg: the book, the play, the film)
  • the subsequent commercial exploitation of that property (eg: the selling of it, the staging of it, the screening of it)

The former, the writing, is a job of work paid by commission fee. The latter, the commercial sales, earn the writer a royalty, which is a percentage of the profit made from the product they created.

This process is only slightly different for different media. The fee can be a recoupable advance of future income: books typically pay an advance on royalties in this way, and plays sometimes have a recoupable portion of a commission fee.

For theatre in particular, it's extremely important for writers to be paid in this way. Commission fees are not hugely substantial, for obvious reasons: most theatre productions have limited runs, because that's how the financial model works, but the writer is afforded more chances to have their work staged and therefore earn more money. Part of the craft of playwriting is to create a work that does not inhibit creative re-interpretation in the staging of it.

The product of writing

[edit]

I say all this to make it very clear that the actual script you hold in your hand is a book that someone has been paid to write, regardless of whether or not it actually gets staged (or published). Hard-won industry agreements guarantee payment of a percentage of the fee whether or not the intended production actually happens. Fees are paid in installments, typically on commission, on delivery, and then on acceptance of what is delivered, the first two being non-recoupable.

What we're talking about here is the work of writer - the product of writing, the primary source and the original topic of all productions - and how we should title that so we can best represent the life of that work, which is the only everlasting thing in the world of theatre. Everything else is (deliberately!) transient.

To list plays by their productions therefore makes no sense at all. Where there is any need for disambiguation, the play - the underlying material itself, not the production - should be listed Title (play) or Title (musical).

Significant works

[edit]

With regard to very significant productions of plays, eg: Shakespeare, the tendency is to focus on which notable performers have played the big roles, or which notable directors have made notable staging choices. None of those things require a separate article because those people will already have their own articles.

Even where a production is itself notable, like London's everlasting production of Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap, it really doesn't need a separate article. As with The Mousetrap, a play may be renowned for one specific production - but that is really exceptional. The script, the play itself is the underlying property and should be identified by the author/s, with specific productions itemised within the article.

Multiple adaptations of the same source material

[edit]

Where there are several adaptations of the same source material, they should additionally be titled by author/s:

With regard to the order of names, the simplest way is alphabetical, not least because different pairings in a musical theatre writing team might co-create any one element of book, music, lyrics.

Where there is a writing team who already use a well-known 'team name', that should be respected, not least because common usage might well lead to a single article here (eg: Rodgers & Hammerstein).

And where there is an unusual circumstance, common sense can prevail. In Hill's musical adaptation of Phantom, there were two versions that featured music by different composers: Armit wrote the first score, but the second version replaced that whole score with a new one that used music taken from a catalogue of existing operas by multiple composers, none of whom wrote any of that music for this musical. Hence, Hill has a stronger connection to the material, and the others get to be named in the body of the article.

Play scripts and libretti are also books

[edit]

The other important fact about a play script or libretto which supports this listing by author's name is that a script is also a book that can be read. It is printed like a book, and is sold as a book. Stage publishers make scripts available for sale, and the writer/s receive a royalty on the sale price.

People do buy them to read, which is why there is a book sale royalty, and then a separate royalty which is a percentage from the licensing fee paid by people who want performing rights. Again, writers are paid one thing for the product itself, and another thing for the usage of that product.

In response to those who might say that a script is merely a template for performance, I say: a novel uses one form of written description to tell a story, and a script uses another form of written description to tell a story, but the purpose of both is to tell a story. A script that has never been performed still coherently and dramatically tells the whole story, and novels are frequently performed as audiobooks.

It is certainly not up to us as Wikipedia editors to tell writers how they should be writing stories down. For example, playwrights are perfectly entitled to write stage directions that are crafted to be performed, and novelists are perfectly entitled to use footnotes as narrative tools. Personally, I put jokes in my stage directions that are specifically only meant to be read by the person reading the script.

Screenplays

[edit]

Screenplays (film scripts) differ from theatre scripts in two main ways.

  1. Films are exactly the same forever, which plays (other than The Mousetrap!) are not. One can always see Dracula (2006 film): that will always be the way that that particular adaptation of the story is presented, so it can be identified that way, because it will never be anything other than that exact thing.
  2. Film companies tend to do one deal where they acquire all possible rights (including stage - and rights for "any media yet to be invented"!) for a very long period of time. Film contracts have unhealthy, overly possessive relationships with film scripts, so additional film adaptations of the same property are far, far less frequent and pretty much always have brand new scripts. Plus screenplays are rarely made available to be read (legally, anyway) for the same possessive reasons.

So we can see a film again, but we cannot ever see the 1924 staging of Deane's play Dracula again. At least, not with the same actors, at those same ages. One could see a new production of it, and that production would likely not merit its own article, so it would go into the article for the play.

Therefore:

Yes, we will end up with longer titles, but they are really the only accurate titles we can use.

The book of a musical

[edit]

In an earlier discussion, someone mentioned that the libretto of a traditional Broadway-style musical is referred to in the industry as "The Book". This is true, and is already noted on the book disambiguation page. It seems irrelevant with regard to naming conventions, since the term is not commonly known.

Patchwork stage productions

[edit]

Going back in history to a time when publishing was a far smaller industry than it is now, and where material written by multiple people whose names we don't know was put together with speed for the purpose of one production, there we could title as per production - not least because those specific plays were not particularly crafted to be repeated, so they weren't captured in the same way.

Stage productions such as the Ziegfeld Follies, and other vaudeville, revue, or cabaret style shows that use a mixture of materials by many writers can be titled as per the actual production. Some are transient and unlikely to be repeated in the same exact form.

Catalogue or jukebox musicals based on multiple works by a single artist should use the name of the bookwriter and the name of that artist or catalogue:

  • Viva Forever! (musical) is correctly titled to distinguish it from the song of the same name that is part of the primary topic, even if not all of it. If anyone else writes a Spice Girls musical, then it could most usefully be retitled Viva Forever! (Saunders, Spice Girls catalogue musical)
  • Dreamboats and Petticoat was based on a compilation album of the same name, which is the primary source, but the musical is the more well-known of the two, giving it naming prominence. If that were not true, then it would be titled Dreamboats and Petticoats (musical) and if there were another with the same title, then Dreamboats and Petticoats (Gran, Marks, 50s & 60s jukebox musical).

Primary and secondary topics

[edit]

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)))[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The over-all framework for how article titles are chosen in Wikipedia is at WP:AT. For ambiguous article titles, additional guidance at WP:D. Topic-specific guidance at:

Example:

Another:

And another:

One more:

A last one:

As you can see, there's a wide variety of possibilities, e.g. Porgy and Bess (1950 album) and West Side Story (Oscar Peterson Trio album), which should both follow NCM (§ Bands, albums and songs), have parenthetical disambiguators with a different structure; the article title of the Metastasio libretto "should" follow NCB, but doesn't (in fact it implicitly follows NCO); the picture book article has a redundant "Pirotta" in its parenthetical disambiguator; the Cinderella (2013 Broadway production) and Cinderella (Fitinhof-Schell) articles both appear to be, as currently written, about a particular theatre production, but their article titles, at least the parenthetical disambiguators in these titles, follow quite different principles.

Here's the catch: there's only so much that naming conventions guidelines can do, the rest follows from practice, that is how Wikipedia editors give titles to articles (hopefully as much as possible in keeping with the general principles of WP:AT). New guidance can be written (or is implied without being written) when a series of WP:RMs shows a consistent result, with a fairly broad consensus.

So here's my recommendation to BessieMaelstrom: if a number of Phantom of the Opera-related or Dracula-related (etc) article titles irk you, then initiate WP:RMs on those you think that should change. It is unlikely guidance will be written or rewritten before there is a series WP:RMs with consistent result, and broad consensus. Be prepared to be disappointed. Some of the titles you proposed above are, for instance, longer and less recognisable (thus going against WP:CRITERIA #1 and #4 of the WP:AT policy), and thus will likely not get the upper hand in a WP:RM. All in all little future for these ideas, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Standard disambiguating words

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Redux

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
​Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(books)&oldid=1250070784"