Talk:Playback singer

Proposed merge of Ghost singer with Playback singer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While there are differences between the terms' uses, the two articles as currently written overlap entirely in their scope. They should either be merged, or separated so that Playback singer only covers South Asia and Ghost singer only Hollywood. Paul_012 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree both articles should be separated that will be Playback Singer covering entire South Asia. So I'm gonna remove part of both the articles. Satrar (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Merge Per WP:ENGVAR, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:NOTADICTIONARY we don't have separate articles where the same phenomenon happens to have different names in different regions. One might argue that there is a difference of emphasis between the terms, in that ghost singers in Hollywood were at one time an industry secret, whereas playback singers have long (?always?) been public knowledge in India; however, that aspect has blurry grey areas across geography and over time and so is better discussed within a single merged article rather than artificially split into black-and-white. @Satrar: it was incorrect to implement your preferred answer while the question is still under discussion. I have accordingly rolled back until this discussion is concluded. jnestorius^(talk) 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Merge, per above and the fact that the pages are quite similar. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep and separate. These may look similar, and be written as such, but they are entirely separate subjects and should be split into and managed as separate articles. Playback singers have a long history in the Bollywood/Tollywood/Pollywood film industries and genres, and are spread across multiple types of film production in South Asia. Ghost singers are limited to one branch of a film industry in the US. These two articles should not be merged. I'm with User:Satrar. Dane|Geld 22:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) (edited 11:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC))
• Merge Per above. There is no reason to have two separate articles for the same profession just because it's called different things in different countries. Astrology developed independently in Europe and in Asia, but it has one article despite independent origins and separate traditions. There's a single article for Pharmacist despite them being called Chemists in the UK. Merging under Ghost Singer is a sensible solution. South Asian film having a separate term for the same profession is not a compelling enough reason for it to have its own article. Tech12 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tech12: Then it should be Ghost singer merged into Playback singer. The playback singer has been well known across South Asia for many many years, and as Jnestorius said above, Ghost singers have been an industry secret. It's better that the topics are merged under the more well known of the two titles. Dane|Geld 09:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) - EDIT and respectfully, Tech12, the American film industry having a separate term for the same profession is not a compelling enough reason for it to have its own article, either. Dane|Geld 10:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: My opinion is that playback singer singer should be merged into ghost singer, as playback singer is more of an India-centric word and ghost singer is a more broader term. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sahaib3005: - Playback singer might be more of an India-centric word. What you have to ask yourself is this: which do you think people are more likely to search for? Ghost singer or Playback singer? In my mind, Playback singer is a term which is more widely known than Ghost singer. Ghost singer should be the redirect, and we should make Playback singer less India-centric to take account of both. Dane|Geld 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify my position, I'm fine with either option, as long as one is chosen and the articles are not left in the current redundant overlapping mess. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.