Talk:Glossary of music terminology

Concerto

Shouldn't 'concerto' be included on the 'Glossary of musical terminology' page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.246.252.101 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been added. (It was a curious omission, since so many other entries already referred to the term.) As a general matter, if an entry seems obviously missing, just go find a source and add it. WP:Be bold!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, the arguments put forward by the nominator being compelling. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Glossary of musical terminology → Glossary of music terminology – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, and to be consistent with so many other "Glossary of subject-noun terminology" lists. The terminology is not "musical" (an instrument, a talent/skill, a production might be); it is simply about music. I would, however, not move to this "Glossary of music", because this in fact about a terminology, i.e. a rather pre-defined and consistently applied system of terms, not random words and phrases that pertain to the subject (contrast Glossary of blogging); and because "Glossary of subject-noun" by itself is often confusingly ambiguous (e.g. Glossary of computer science is clear, while "Glossary of computer software" could easily imply some kind of software list or software-category list to some readers, and the article is sensibly at Glossary of computer software terms). "Music" is one such case, and "Glossary of music" would seem to mean an index of genres/styles to too many readers for us to use that. That is to say, we do not impose CONCISE as the cost of PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not just musical terminology oder glossary of music if "concise" is the guiding principle? 216.8.143.101 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:CONSISTENT; we have a convention for how to name glossaries, a specific kind of stand-alone list article. While there is some content-related variance (is it an article on a terminological system? on non-systemic jargon or slang? A more specialized kind of term–definition list?), we do start them with "Glossary of". Why not to use "Glossary of music" was already covered above in some detail; please read RM nominations before responding to them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Glossary of music would also tie in with Category:Glossaries of music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See above. Note also that WP:CONSISTENT doesn't per se apply as a guideline between categories and articles (only to mainspace), but that WP:CFD#SPEEDY applies an adaptation of it, to move categories to be consistent with article titles when feasible. It does not operate in the opposite direction. There is no principle by which we rename articles to better agree with category names, which are often – as in this case – more general due to the broad nature of their contents. Not all of the articles in the category are similar in type nor in title, and it might not even be feasible to make them all have exactly corresponding titles due to their content and structural dissimilarities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The other suggestions are also OK with me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Musical" can in fact mean simply "about music". There is nothing wrong or confusing about it. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup note (this closed before I noticed the anon's comment): Encyclopedic writing isn't about what something "can mean", to someone somewhere in some particular context; it's about (and is most especially about in article titles) what a term is most likely to mean to the largest number of users, and always with an eye to eliminating potential ambiguity. See WP:CRITERIA for a summary of these principles, the most pertinent being precision, naturalness, and recognizability, which are at the top of the list, with concision and consistency last, for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)