Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/MUSTARD/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Albums with title songs

A discussion is currently underway at Talk:My Life (Mary J. Blige album)#Rename about the naming of album articles that also have title songs with articles, and about the best way to handle these entries on disambiguation pages for popular titles with many albums & songs listed. The dab page involved is My Life (and an alternative version).--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of band names revisited

Or: is MOS:TM appropriate when MOS:PN feels more applicable? To make my point, let me draw a Venn diagram. In one circle you have band names, in the other you have trademarks. These two circles can possibly intersect but not all band names are trademarks. Anyways my proposal is to update the current WP:MUSTARD capitalization guideline to allow discretionary editing based on WP:MOSPN and/or WP:MOSTM, whichever is more applicable. any other thoughts? riffic (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Asides from the fact that you haven't presented any logical argument why one or other guideline should or should not apply? This has been discussed over and over again. We have a set of guidelines which aim to maintain a consistent formatting style. Most other publications have a house style which determines whether or not to follow the non standard formatting of a particular subject. On Wikipedia it has been decided that standard English takes precedent over the stylistic preferences of company names, album titles or band names for example. Just because a band name may not be a trademark, does not mean that MOSTM should not apply. How do you suggest we govern "discretionary" editing? Such loose terms will inevitably lead to edit wars with one set of editors favouring one guideline over the other, with no way of determining which to follow. In order to suggest a change to MUSTARD, you need to first present a reason that such a change is actually needed. At present, I don't see the need for such a change, other than people feeling annoyed that their favourite band's name is not rendered one Wikipedia in the stylistic way the band decided to write it. This is not a valid reason to change. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed enough, since it still seems to be a point of contention between various editors. There is nothing wrong with bringing this back up for discussion. By "discretionary" I am paraphrasing the notice at the top of the guideline that says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Logical arguments coming soon, hold your horses! riffic (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against discussing it again, but only if you are able to present some new and meaningful argument as to why we should not capitalise band names. Re-hashing the same old arguments isn't going to change anything and will simply waste time and effort. At the end of the day, there will always be some that are unhappy with a decision or guideline - however, this doesn't mean that such a decision or guideline is necessarily wrong. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your claim a revisit to this discussion as a waste of time is a fallacy, Consensus is not immutable and can change. In this case, consensus isn't even apparent. riffic (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. MOS:TM is inadequate, because it doesn't apply specifically to band names, it doesn't even mention anything about band names (other than the token example for KISS -> Kiss, which actually is a trademark. look it up). Look up the definition of Trademark, and tell me what about it would make you think it would apply to all band names? I was always told that band names were a form of proper noun. For most cases, a more applicable guideline would be WP:MOSPN, so that's why I suggest making the change. riffic (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but it won't if you don't provide logical, well-presented arguments that raise new issues to those that have been discussed over and over. Consensus is clear except to those that choose to ignore it. MOSTM doesn't need to specify all the cases that it would apply to - it would be far too long to do this. Instead, instances that should apply MOSTM are clearly marked in the appropriate guideline. For instance, the style guideline for music related articles directs us that "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists" (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization), with a link to WP:MOSTM. In other words, MOSTM was initially designed to apply to trademarks, but various other projects have adopted the suggested style, despite not necessarily relating to a "trademark". MOSTM simply represents the name of the guideline and does not specifically limit its use. You need to explain why we should no longer apply this. Stating that a band name is not a trademark is irrelevant. By the way, your links don't work. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case we are presented with two choices. One would be to use a guideline that is inadequate, is being used outside it's scope, and doesn't really apply. The other would be to use a more applicable guideline. Band names are proper nouns, so a manual of style guideline for proper names would be more appropriate in scope. btw, another logical fallacy is to keep arguing that your opponent isn't providing logical arguments. riffic (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Who says it is inadequate and doesn't apply? Both guidelines existed in the past and MOSTM was agreed upon to apply to bands. Despite this MOSPN states that

Proper names are names of persons, places, or certain special things. In English, these are typically capitalized nouns

. The lowercasing of such proper nouns is only applied to personal names. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion, as presented in 2007, is basically all I'm calling for. riffic (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC) :

"Actually there is a a minor change that be made, in order to bring WP:MUSTARD more into line with the "big ones": Rephrasing the Capitalization section to cover both, "the names of bands and individual artists" (as per WP:MOS-CL, WP:MOS-PN and again WP:MOS-TM). - Cyrus XIII 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

What is the suggestion? Nouse4aname (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing the Capitalization section riffic (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that the user you are quoting from above was suggesting a rewording to further clarify the use of standard English capitalisation over stylistic formatting - the opposite of your stance... Nouse4aname (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My only "stance" is that we should allow the appropriate guidelines to be the basis of this guideline. My logical argument for this is that since band names are Proper Nouns, the Manual of Style that would be applicable in this case is the one covering Proper Names. This can be in addition to MOS:TM, but how MUSTARD is currently worded is totally inadequate because MOS:TM is outside the scope of this specific guideline and being applied incorrectly. riffic (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But as I already explained, proper nouns are always capitalised. It is only personal names that may, on occasion, be written in lowercase. A band name is not a "personal name". Further, as I have said many times before, just because the name of MOSTM refers to trademarks, does not mean that it must only be applied to trademarks. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just a brief opinion here for you regarding actual use. [I don't want to get into all that between PN & TM stuff.] I like the part at PN, "Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information." I believe that Wiki article titles should follow the "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists" (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization)individual artists" (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization) and in cases where customized differences occur use the "Alternative names are often given in parentheses..."
Disambiguation pages should also show the "Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information." Definitely appropriate to show "greater clarity" on a disambig page.
I do have one suggestion for improvement. Change the language to:
"Alternative names or styles are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information."
^ Bold here only to emphasize the change that I recommend.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, although not actually stated as clearly as that, this is generally what is applied in these cases. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ha ha. Even before Wiki I have been called, "Mr. Detail." I seek clarity. ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good! A note such as the one you suggest above probably should be included in MUSTARD. Perhaps we can gain some consensus for it from this discussion... Nouse4aname (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly cool with me :D—Iknow23 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Are there any standards for what constitutes an associated act? If not, I think some standards should be proposed. Angryapathy (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some guidelines in the infobox documentation. See for instance Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Parameters. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would suggest moving that information here, though. Angryapathy (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would belong at MUSTARD. The usage of any template's parameters is always described on the template's documentation page, and I would think that's where everyone looks for it. (If they are new to Wikipedia and don't know that template parameters are documented, they probably never heard of MUSTARD, and would not likely come here looking for it.) Proposals for changes should go on the template's talk page. There was a large review of this parameter last year, when we updated the instructions, and you can read all about it here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it does belong at MUSTARD. As this project page says in its lead, "Wikipedia has developed a large repertoire of articles about music" and "These guidelines are a set of standards" for those articles. Regarding template documentation, I think that's more suited to technical aspects explaining how to use the template than to defining WP article standards and guidelines; I think the latter are best covered by MoS or, where dictated by the specialist nature of a topic such as music, individual WikiProjects. I would like to suggest we start to define a MUSTARD standard for music infobox fields. (Either on the project page or on a new subpage for the purpose.) One music infobox field crying out for a standard is genre. We see constant "genre churn" across the whole spectrum of music-related articles: people add more and more genres to infoboxes because that's what it looks as though they should contain, and others remove them, and edit warring results. A MUSTARD standard would provide a point of reference in disputes, and guide editors in their choice of genres to include in infoboxes, including:

• drawing attention to the fact that it's a hierarchy (Psychedelic Rock is a kind of Rock, Hard Rock is a kind of Rock ...)
• giving basic guidelines for selecting main genre(s) where many apply;
• drawing attention to the need for all infobox entries, including genre, to be justified by the primary text and its cited sources

to name but a few. PL290 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A template's documentation MUST be at the template's page. That's where users look for it. If it were at MUSTARD, it would be a duplication of info, and the two pages are certain to get out of sync. MUSTARD's page should point to the template and its documentation, and can add comments about how associated acts are described in the body of the article. I believe MUSTARD exists to describe the body of the article only. All guidelines about infobox contents belong in the infobox documentation. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the genre field (and its misuse), we've had so much discussion about this over the years. I did attempt to write an essay article about it at one time, but my writing gets wordy, and I abandoned it. I do have a shorter version of it here (you don't wanna see the long version!). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw your essay already! (Among numerous other manifestations of the genre churn issue...) But I think we can do something about it. Re. the template documentation, I disagree about keeping the guidelines there, since template documentation has no obvious status other than to help users understand how to use the template. That means it's of little help in resolving usage disputes, and also it's not seen as part of a coherent set of standards for music articles. I think template documentation should refer to any applicable standards or guidelines, not define them itself. I certainly agree with you that the guidelines should be in only one place; my point is that MUSTARD is that place, not template docs. I'm not surprised there's been so much discussion over the years about genres when MUSTARD is silent on the matter. PL290 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AGREE with PL290: Template documentation should explain how to use the template, not determine the appropriate contents thereof. As PL290 states: "template documentation should refer to any applicable standards or guidelines, not define them itself. " and that the standards should be here, at MUSTARD.
It just makes more sense to me for any discussion of content standards to be in the talk here instead of in a talk at a template documentation page, and thus the standards themselves to appear here at MUSTARD.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could get some more input on this? I can't find anything whatsoever about infoboxes and navboxes on the current MUSTARD page, and I'm certain MUSTARD was created to cover the article content only. The infobox summarizes the article, and we've often discussed the problem that some editors don't realize this, and attempt to use the infobox to document info not already found in the body of the article. To emphasize that this is wrong, I think it's appropriate that MUSTARD concentrate on what it does, and treat the infobox as something separate. This approach is the opposite of the statement which PL290 made and Iknow23 repeated: MUSTARD documentation should refer to any applicable standards or guidelines for templates, not define them itself. (Which it currently doesn't, so I agree a change of some kind is needed.) My reasoning is, "it just isn't done!" (documenting the usage of a tempate's fields anywhere other than the template's page). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I just added links to infobox and navbox templates as a "see also" section, as an interim solution. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation ("band")

Hello. I was wondering about disambiguating music groups and bands. On the page, it says that the disambiguating term is "band", but it's a bit ambiguous because it doesn't state that band is the only or main term to be used.

I'm having some issues with people repeatedly moving F(x) (band) into F(x) (girl group) and whatnot. I've pointed them here, but then I realised this page doesn't really say anything about that. From previous experience and talking with other editors, I understand that "band" is the main term to be used, but considering that it doesn't say that anywhere, can someone either put it into policy or show me where it clarifies this issue? Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines for this are at WP:NCM, where it says: "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using '(band)' [...]. Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (U.S. band), X (Australian band))". --JD554 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I initially thought that wasn't clear (because I thought it should be really obvious?...I don't know), but I guess when reading it after a few hours of alertness, it's clear enough. Thanks! SKS (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious. It says When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)", but that's specifically for bands, albums, and songs. The examples used are bands with no mention on how to disambiguate vocal groups. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom of page box: Contents

I have seen the bottom of the pages of Musical artist pages and their directly related pages such as Discography, Albums, singles, etc display what appears to be a summary of information. In many cases items are included that do not have a separate wiki article to link to, such as some of the singles. I support this type of usage as being a helpful informational summary that can be viewed at any of the directly related pages. However, some editors are removing the UNlinked items pointing out that the box is a "Navbox" and can only display items that have an article to "Nav"igate to. There is absolutely no indication upon viewing the pages, that the items displayed at the bottom are to be limited to only those with wiki pages. Indeed upon further investigation, you can see these named "Template:Artist Name" with the ONLY indication that they are really a "Navbox" being if one clicks to "e", edit it. There and only there can you see it named, "Navbox Musical artist".
My question is: Can these templates be renamed as perhaps "Infobox (bottom) musical artist" or some other to remove the "nav" requirement? What is everyone's thoughts?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As a general guideline it's usually best to leave unlinked items out of a navbox. You might want to read Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which explains navboxes in general. One of the things it says there is "Unlinked text should be avoided." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are navigation boxes: Their purpose is to allow readers to easily navigate between between individual articles in a family of related articles. If they do not fulfill this purpose, then there is no point to them. Thus they should only contain links to existing articles, not text without links, and not redlinks (exceptions are made for topics that are developing, such as a family of articles that are in the process of being created; if the topic is likely to be made into an article within a reasonable amount of time, then a redlink in a navbox is not a big deal). The fact that they are typically named "Template:Artist Name" is irrelevant, and only due to the fact that nobody has bothered to create a unifying prefix such as "Template:Navbox Artist Name" (as we have, say, for infoboxes with "Template:Infobox Subject"). A musical artist navbox is not a discography-in-a-box, nor is it everything-about-the-artist-crammed-inato-a-box-in-bullet-point-form. It is a collection of links to ease navigation, and thus non-links do not belong in it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how is a general reader to realize that this area is reserved for articles with links only, and that it is not an entire listing of say, an artist's singles. The reader may not know there are more than shown there as they may not be that familiar with the artist, perhaps being why they came to the article in the first place. If a non-linked single is just named there, it may generate interest to go further to a Discography page to learn more about it.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the term NavBox, which is why I asked if they could be renamed to something more like an infobox as relating to music articles so non-linked content will be allowed to appear.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no point to non-linked content in such a box; it would make the box totally redundant to the parent article and its accompanying categories. We are not trying to create a bigger infobox at the bottom of the page. Navboxes are used all over Wikipedia, and their function is the same in nearly every topic area: navigation, not summation. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As already said, they are navigation boxes and are for use by the whole of Wikipedia. I can't see any reason why they should be different for any sub-section of Wikipedia. The argument is really whether there should be a separate encyclopedia for music. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could think up a way to distinguish this to the reader, placing navigation box somewhere in the template heading or something? It really does appear to be a table of summation as is, it could do with some sort of clarification. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If all navboxes contain nothing but links, readers should get the idea of what these are. Since there are some incorrectly used navboxes around (though I think they are in the minority), some readers may be unclear about it. I don't think the template name is a problem, because casual article readers don't see it anyway. (And as Iknow23 points out, if they edit the box, then they'll see the name and also that it's a navbox.) If this really is a problem to be addressed, maybe we could have a little question mark icon in the corner of the box, which the reader could click to find out "what is this?" - but this isn't a standard at Wikipedia (though it is a standard in computer applications). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Appending to above: I was thinking of the little yellow box that appears when you hover your cursor over something. (It's called a tooltip.) We already use them on the "v-d-e" bar, and I see no reason why a question mark couldn't be added. This would be a suggestion for all navboxes, not just for musical artists. You could suggest it at the talk page for Template:Navbox. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal experience being active at Wikipedia daily for months never gave me the idea or impression that the box at the bottom of the page was a navbox. I didn't 'get the hint' because I was accustomed to seeing the 'incorrectly used navboxes'. I thought they were a handy little summary of the artist's albums, singles, etc some of which had a link to individual pages that could be visited. I became aware of navbox when an editor removed the non-linked items and then had a discussion with them and did some 'reading-up' on navboxes at Wiki. I still PREFER the summary approach as it would contribute to a more 'user-friendly' wiki. After all, people are coming here for information. My less preferred approach, but still an improvement, is that we should at least identify the fact that ONLY the artist's albums, singles, etc. that have a SEPARATE wiki page will appear within. Or more simply, as Kiac put it "it could do with some sort of clarification."—Iknow23 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Also readers should not be required to click "e"dit to learn that it is a navbox. The material presented is in plain view, the fact that ONLY linked material will appear should be visible as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are articles like List of songs recorded by Perry Como for the purpose of giving the sort of discographic data that is being discussed here. So it makes sense to use the navboxes for navigation and list articles like these for discographic data. Shouldn't that keep everyone happy? -- BRG (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that as songs do not require a wikipage to be 'listed' (as seen in your example). And the "List of songs..." page is a wiki article, so it can be placed (linked) in the navbox.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"songs do not require a wikipage to be 'listed'" — that was the whole point. Many songs that belong in a discography of an artist don't qualify because of "notability" guidelines — I've had so many fights over notability with other Wikipedians that I'm weary of them — but this way they can be put in. I first saw this sort of thing done for Frank Sinatra; I added the ones for Como, Patti Page, and Doris Day. Any artist with a lot of songs to his/her credit ought to have a page like this. -- BRG (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Just simply because the ought to? Because of popularity or notability? There needs to be some sort of standard set, because not just any artist needs a list of songs, a table with simply a list of songs is usually just a waste of an article. I'm yet to be convinced that a list of songs has any sort of significance as an encyclopedic article (an exception may be those older artists you mentioned, whom may have numerous obscure releases; with current artists all you would be doing is scrolling down five album track listings, what a waste). I'd like some further insight into why people think we need these at all. (Might want to create new section) kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "scrolling down five album track listings" because they are not listed in album sequence. They are listed in alpha order by song title.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The "older artists [I] mentioned, [who] may have numerous obscure releases" are the ones I'm mostly concerned with. If such a list is not useful for recent artists, don't make a page for them! -- BRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to disambiguate that it is a navbox, add to navbox title [after the linked Artist name] "(list of other wiki pages)", without the quotation marks, of course.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It just clutters the box. I don't think things need to be spelled out to that extent. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)