Talk:Night Train (Jimmy Forrest composition)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Jazz Low‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Fair use rationale for Image:Night Train - Jimmy Forest 1952.ogg

Image:Night Train - Jimmy Forest 1952.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Night Train - Viscounts 1966 Amy.ogg

Image:Night Train - Viscounts 1966 Amy.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Night Train (Jimmy Forrest composition). There is clear consensus for a move, but the deciding factor has to be whether it is a "song", an "instrumental" or a "composition". In that regard, the consensus—backed up by dab guidelines and the prevalence of "composition" in parallel articles coupled with use of the name of one of the composers—indicates the chosen destination is the appropriate one. Philg88 ^♦talk 22:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Night Train (composition) → Night Train (instrumental) – Per WP:SONGDAB, see Night Train; songs with lyrics are also "compositions". In ictu oculi (talk) --Relisted. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 06:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, seems logical--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems quite sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure. Oppose The James Brown version was not purely instrumental - as the article says, he calls out place names. Why change the existing title, which covers all the versions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC) The same comment applies to other versions, so changing vote to oppose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, that's true of others versions too e.g. Georgie Fame's. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ghmyrtle; I'm also not sure that's quite what WP:SONGDAB says: "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using '(composition)' or '(instrumental)'." According to the reading suggested in the request, wouldn't there be no use for the "(composition)" parenthetical for any article, since all would either be "song" (with lyrics) or "instrumental" (without lyrics)? Dekimasuよ! 19:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we could still use "composition" in the extremely unlikely case where only 1 composition exists, but yes WP:SONGDAB is badly written on this point and contradicts WP:DISAMBIGUATION. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The potential that "(composition)" might become an orphan does not particularly bother me. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment struck after reading more closely to note that some version is not purely an instrumental. No opinion expressed at this point. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Philg88 , Yaksar, Martinevans123, Ghmyrtle, Dekimasu, BarrelProof, When situations like this come up can nominators please check methods of presentation used in parallel articles through categories and mention any relevant parallel presentations found and can supporters conduct similar checks. In this case Category:1950s jazz standards indicates a prevalence of the use of (composition), or (song) style disambiguations with a single instance of (instrumental composition). Maybe some of the other compositions had vocal components but, all the same, I think reference to other usage is best made. Editors may have their own views on consistency but many would regard this request to relate to an all or nothing affair. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm now wondering about examples of other "songs without words". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Night Train (Jimmy Forrest song), Night Train (Jimmy Forrest composition), or Night Train (James Brown song)? --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here, Night Train (Jimmy Forrest song), Night Train (Jimmy Forrest composition), or Night Train (James Brown song) would all be in line with WP:DAB which the current title obviously is not. User:Yaksar User:Martinevans123 User:Philg88 User:Dekimasu User:Ghmyrtle what title do you propose since this is not the only composition? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, In ictu oculi. I have to be honest, I'm failing to come to any solid conclusions on a best solution one way or another. I don't want to get in the way of a consensus on this one way or another from those who have a more thought out view, so unless I make any further decisions you can consider me sitting out this one unless I gain some brain cells to look at the discussion again.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I'll recuse myself from offering an opinion if you don't mind - my goal here is to close this according to whatever consensus is reached so I need to avoid becoming involved. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Any option with "Night Train (Musician Name song)" seems fine. Dekimasuよ! 11:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support of some move - it appears that the current title stinks, but that it's not reeeeally an instrumental. Red Slash 05:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Night Train (Jimmy Forrest song)", even though the words are few and optional. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use Night Train (Jimmy Forrest composition) since the words are "optional" and just added by Brown. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You think songs need words? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.