Category talk:Songs written by Jewel (singer)

Jewel vs. "Jewel Kilcher, professionally known as Jewel"

Please take a look at any of the articles covering her songs and albums:

Spirit (Jewel album): "Spirit is the second studio album by singer/songwriter Jewel, released in 1998 by Atlantic."
This Way (song): "'This Way' is the title track and third single from American musician Jewel's third studio album, This Way (2001)."
Jupiter (Swallow the Moon): "'Jupiter (Swallow the Moon)' is a song by Jewel that was released in 1999 as a single from the album Spirit, following the second single 'Down So Long'."

This is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME's directive that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) . . . ." Most of our sources refer to her as Jewel, not Jewel Kilcher, hence, Jewel, not Jewel Kilcher, is her "common name," which is why her article is named "Jewel (singer)," not "Jewel Kilcher," even though the latter wouldn't require disambiguation. COMMONNAME is a policy (although perhaps not as applied to category descriptions); disdain for "marketing names" is not even a Wikipedia guideline.

This is also consistent with category descriptions of other artists, even those whose names are very much stage names:

Category:Bono: "The main article for this category is Bono."
Category:Katy Perry: "The main article for this category is Katy Perry." (Ms. Perry's "real" name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson.)
Category:Jay Z: "Articles related or about American rapper, Jay Z." (His "real" name is obviously not "Jay Z.")
Category:Songs written by Lemmy read "Songs written or co-written by Lemmy" until you changed it moments ago.

Rebb ing 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Category:Songs written by Lemmy: if your theory is correct, you ought to go all the way and "fix" his infobox name (which currently is Lemmy). Rebb ing 19:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmy's article reads, "Ian Fraser Kilmister (24 December 1945 – 28 December 2015), known as Lemmy..." That is correct and I have no wish to change that.

Humans write songs, not marketing names, often the credits will read the birth name and a little note in the category saves confusion. Strictly speaking, the songs written by should be in the birth names, but WP guidelines, for practical reasons, say article namespace and category should be the same. That's why a little explanation is necessary. It's a shame I didn't realise the cats I mentioned had not been updated yet, but I assure you the great majority of songwriter categories are the same. Here's just a few more I found since our last revert: Category:Songs written by John 5; Category:Songs written by 50 Cent; Category:Songs written by 9th Wonder; Category:Songs written by Ashanti (singer); Category:Songs written by Jay Z; Category:Songs written by Musiq Soulchild; Category:Songs written by En Esch; Category:Songs written by Pig (musical project); Category:Songs written by Phife Dawg; Category:Songs written by Zedd (musician); Category:Songs written by Young MC; Category:Songs written by Young Jeezy; Category:Songs written by Young Buck; Category:Songs written by Yelawolf; Category:Songs written by Yo Gotti... Will you want more?

In addition, I understand it is a legal requirement of authorship that the real name is noted. IOW, the songwriting credit should actually read, "I. Kilminster" (or similar) and not "Lemmy" by having the explanation in the category actually helps and I fail to understand why it could offend anybody. You're the first in the many years I have been editing songwriter categories. The minute we change facts to suit WP we should all close up and go home.

Can I correct your mistake now? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the lede sentence of Lemmy, which includes his birthdate and much other detail; I'm referring instead to the name shown above the infobox. I'd also like to point out that the article is called "Lemmy," not "Ian Fraser Kilmister." If your theory is correct, I would expect both to show Ian Fraser Kilmister. But they don't because our custom is to use common names, not full legal names, when referring to subjects. I see no reason—you've cited no guideline or policy—why that should be any different for category descriptions, which are inherently much less detailed than articles. If there is a legal requirement that artists use their legal names on copyright notices, it has nothing to do with how we choose to write here. (I doubt that any such requirement exists, at least in American law: 17 U.S.C. § 401(b)(3) says that a copyright notice shall include "the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.")

As my "mistake" is supported by Wikipedia policy and custom, I would prefer you didn't "fix" it. Do you think it would be appropriate to open an RFC about this? Rebb ing 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A curiosity regarding this supposed legal requirement: I took a look, and the copyright page of Ms. Kilcher's latest book, Never Broken (2015) (Amazon page) reads: "Copyright © 2015 by Jewel," and the Cataloging in Publication data similarly lists her only as "Jewel"—no "Kilcher" anywhere to be found. Rebb ing 20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check here you will find her songwriting credits are as Jewel Kilcher. You are correct, performance credits are as Jewel. How about checking Lady Gaga here?

I am at complete loss why you continue to mention commonname, there is no dispute by me over this, both article name space and category are at Jewel (with disambiguation). As I said above, it is practical, if not absolutely correct. The little bit of spiel, written by XYZ, known professionally as ABC clears up any misunderstanding and in no way relevant to commonname. Your change is more similar to removing “Ian Kilminster” from the Lemmy article. So truth is, nor have you cited any reason why you are correct – commonname is not relevant here, it doesn’t suggest that any relevant information should be hidden – which is what you are trying to do!

What is relevant is why you wish to make it difficult for readers?

While you are thinking about an RfC you may wish to check the number of other editors that, at song articles, credit the author of a song in their “real name” and pipe through to the stage name.

If you won’t let me correct your mistake now, I do suggest you spend a day or two thinking about it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME is relevant because I believe it indicates how we should refer to subjects both inside and outside their articles. The legal name is only used in the lede of the subject's article, not in other articles or categories that refer to the subject. (My change isn't like removing a person's legal name from his article as it belongs there, along with other details like date of birth.) This is reflected across Wikipedia: An article or category mentioning Mr. Clinton would call him Bill Clinton, his common name, not William Jefferson Clinton, his legal name. Jewel discography—an article, which obviously includes more detail than a category description—makes no mention of "Kilcher" anywhere. The same goes for Madonna albums discography and MDNA (album) (no mention of "Ciccone"). If mentioning an artist's full legal name on a mere category page is useful to readers, surely, it's even more so in an article about her works‽ Yet that's not the policy.

I oppose your change not to make things difficult for our readers but because it's against policy and the "stage name" snark rubs me the wrong way. You could make the same argument ("What is relevant is why you wish to make it difficult for readers?") for nearly anything: say, including an artist's birthdate in a category description. And editors linking to an artist's legal name and piping it as a stage name—e.g., [[Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta|Lady Gaga]])—is forbidden by WP:NOTBROKEN. Rebb ing 21:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation stops here. You have failed to rebut anything I have said, save use something I said as an attack on other editors, Go check the links I have given. Since this discussion started created a category Category:Songs written by Chance the Rapper in the usual style, some of the members I added have the mans birth name and no reference to his stage name, a couple are piped and a couple use his stagename for his songwriting credits. I changed nothing. Using your method is confusing. And I repeat "Jewel (singer)" has not, cannot and will not write a song. If you can find a way round that then let me know. Jewel is primarily a singer, which is why her article is in that name. I make ONE reference to her correct name, do not deny or avoid her professional name and you accuse me of ignoring commonname! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have rebutted what you've said, and nothing I've said was intended as an attack or accusation. You've misconstrued my argument: I've never said "Jewel (singer)" should be used anywhere; it should be "Jewel," as is used by most articles that refer to her. (That's coded as [[Jewel (singer)|Jewel]].) That is what I contend COMMONNAME requires. You also haven't answered my question: If it is necessary to state a subject's full legal name on a category about that subject's work, isn't it also necessary to do the same on an article about that subject's work? Yet, in most contexts, our articles only show full legal names in the ledes of biographies. The authors at Hillary Clinton say that she's married to Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. Bill Clinton is no more his "real" name than Jewel is Jewel Kilcher's "legal" name. (Although, like I said, it appears she's made a change in that her latest work's copyright page lists her only as Jewel.) If you wouldn't alter Hillary Clinton to reflect her husband's true name, why do you insist on doing the same in category summaries? Rebb ing 22:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. The singing performance is marketed as "Jewel" and consequently WP consider that the commonname. However, songwriting is not done by a marketing name and generally is not credited as a marketing name. Therefore, in songwriting categories (and NOT performance categories) it is useful to mention the name used for songwriting. As we are only talking about songwriting categories and not, say Category:Bono, I cannot see your objection. It's not some dark dastardly plan to overwrite any guideline or rule at WP, just a commonsense solution to a minor problem --Richhoncho (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no policy to differentiate between "marketing" names and common names. I've restored the name in the description to Jewel Kilcher without the "stage name" bit. Let's wait for the Manual of Style discussion to shake out. Rebb ing 22:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no policy to differentiate and between marketing and common names and it's only you that has a problem with that. All I am doing is explaining the difference when necessary. You have taken the silly pill today, I mean the category is called Songs written by Jewel (singer) which is correct under WP Guidelines, then for the text your present version is "This category contains songs written or co-written by Jewel Kilcher." So not only is the text completely different from every other songwriter category, but you have removed the explanation of the connection between Jewel (singer) and Jewel Kilcher. What is your point? Why is this such a deal breaker for you? Why mush you confuse yourself and everybody else? What was there was simple, short, explanatory and not offensive to anybody except you. It remained in it's old state for 3 years, many other songwriter articles for much longer, a few had not been changed, some are so commonsense that they don't need changing (Beyoncé?). Some are covered by other artists and the "real name" is used for credits, although in your "we must do everything for WP even if facts get in the way" attitude doesn't allow for that. FWIW I don't think it's a MOS matter, it's a commonsense matter, but then it ain't that common sometimes. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I did not realize you thought we should write "Jewel (singer)" in the prose; I thought my change was a clear concession to you. Writing "Jewel (singer)" in the text—not in a hatnote—is very much not how things are done here. Even the main article doesn't say something like that because the "(singer)" part is a disambiguation parenthetical, not something to be used in writing. Would someone say "I really liked Jewel (singer)'s new album"? No.

Also, your comments about me taking silly pills, accusing me of confusing myself and everyone else, and otherwise maligning my objections as irrational is both unhelpful and extremely inappropriate. I will also point out that, for three years, the description had said that Ms. Kilcher is "professional [sic] known" as Jewel. Catch that? So your argument that the previous wording was well-received is not supportable. Rebb ing 23:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to a typo is demeaning, low and unnecessary. As is this whole discussion. But here goes again.

The original text should have read "Songs written or co-written by Jewel Kilcher, professionally known as Jewel (singer)."

In the minimum amount of words it tells the reader:-

the songwriter name (which would be extremely appropriate if the song had been recorded by another singer and was credited to "J Kilcher"
That the song may be co-written and not solely written.
A link to the article (thus serving the same purpose as catmore which becomes surplus to requirements).

That is what you removed and continue to make such a big issue over that neither of us have or will provide anything positive to WP for the weekend. It really was not necessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not demeaning—and such a claim from someone who accuses other editors of taking "crazy pills"? I pointed out the typo—without naming its source—to rebut your assertion that your preferred version was widely approved of. Your claim that I'm wasting time and that I'm making a big issue is belied by your actions: we're both involved in this, and we've both wasted a lot of time. Did you even read your preferred version? You say that Ms. Kilcher was professionally known as "Jewel (singer)," but that is patently not true. Nothing—not her album notes, not music critics or newspaper writers—is calling her "Jewel (singer)." Perhaps you had in mind a hatnote? The main article for this topic is Jewel (singer)? Rebb ing 23:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and if you had added "ly" and piped "Jewel (singer)" we would both be happy, and if you had actually realised why I reverted you within 1 minute instead of starting a revert war, if you had opened the discussion instead of the reverts, If I had got it right to begin with would you have still reverted me? All water under the bridge, but your continued reference to historical typos does not show you to be in a position to make civility and AGF comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no "ly." And you're still not getting it: the spelling mistake isn't about you; it simply shows that very few eyes aside from our own have looked at that description. Do you understand that? Let me restate: it was an obvious error; it went uncorrected for three years; therefore, we may deduce that the description had received very little attention. It doesn't matter who made the mistake in the first place. Rebb ing 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought you wrote, "Perhaps you had in mind a hatnote" Oh, that is what you typed. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]