Talk:Elvis Presley single

Philately Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting 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.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page name: Elvis Presley single vs Elvis Presley stamp.[edit]

I think this was erroneously moved, the subject of the article is addressed as 29c Elvis Presley single in all the secondary sources. I will revert, not to start an edit war, but to begin the WP:BRD cycle here. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity and with respect to the other side, I would be open to considering Elvis Presley single (stamp) but then I believe it moves away from WP:PRECISE but I would be happy to be persuaded otherwise. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion caused through the move! Given that Elvis Presley was a musician who produced singles, I think it would be beneficial to have a clear name that indicates that this is a page for the stamp. When I read, "Elvis Presley single", I immediately thought, "Which one?". However, we would need to add some clarity to differentiate from the Elvis Presley Forever stamp. On that page, the {for} disambiguates with the "Elvis Presley 29c stamp". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far better would be to rename this article as Elvis Presley stamp, 1993 to differentiate it from the forever stamp, because the addition of the word single will only cause confusion for both philatelists and record aficionados. The addition of the date clarifies everything and still keeps the word stamp in the title. 19:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The above comment is from Ww2censor (talk)

Adding a partition here because I was unable to reply above. @Ww2censor and Significa liberdade: I understand the confusion with an article about a subject who is known for music being listed as single. I'm not familiar with standard article naming in philately but to me Elvis Presley stamp (1993) would make more sense, no? microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further question for @Ww2censor: as our now resident philatelist, what is the standard practice for including the face value in the article title, and would that assist with clarity? 29c Elvis Presley single (stamp) respects the policy for using the common name as article title. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus and Significa liberdade:: There are no hard and fast rules for naming stamps, some include a catalogue number and other include a year while still others use complicated descriptive names. Trying to standardise stamp image names would be a mammoth task and involve thousands of moves on the commons, though less on the enwiki. Face values are seldom included but may be useful where several stamps of the same series have been uploaded but a catalogue number may provide the same result however, use catalogue numbers can be a problem due to them being in copyright. The main naming issue is one of clarity and that is best achieved without making them more complex than unnecessary. Simple and clear is always best. Have a look at the different naming structures used in this selection c:Category:Airmail stamps of the United States. ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor & MicrobiologyMarcus: Perhaps Category:Postage stamps of the United States would be more useful? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus and Significa liberdade:: That's not really very useful because that category is for stamp articles not for stamp names. Perhaps this Category:Fair use stamp images and its sub-categories, is what you really mean. ww2censor (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor, I thought it would be useful to see how other articles about stamps are named given that we're trying to decide how to name this article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back and forth, I do think that single is important but I get that if someone is searching for an article, Elvis Presley stamp (1993) is also really descriptive and would land on the right page. What are your thoughts on that? microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 13:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]