Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Loss of content? 2 Style guide looks good 3 More is needed 4 Thoughts, July 4 4.1 Capitalization 4.2 Categorization 4.3 Disambiguation 4.4 Discography 4.5 External links 5 Notability requirement for article requests. 6 Cats 7 The "many" tag 8 Formatting - Quotes and capitalization 9 Fair use of images in discographies 10 Capitalization question 11 No Trivia? Really? 12 Year in Music links 13 Album categories 14 Mustard? 15 Mass removal of Mustard tags 16 Images should be unobtrusive? 17 Bootlegs 18 Piped years 19 Track Listings? 20 Disambiguation among albums 21 Capitalization of "the Beatles"

[edit] Loss of content?

There's a lot less information here than the current guidelines. I would like the ampersand rule kept, for instance, among others. And why not more examples?

Basically all the recent issues at the talk page are worth discussing here, I think: music charts and authoritative sources for such, external links, discography formatting... And what of notability? Categorization?

Now that I think of it, it's a very underdeveloped WikiProject for such a major subject... –Unint 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a work in progress. I've put the ampersands rule in. Feel free to add other rules at will. I agree that the Music Project is way underdeveloped. Tuf-Kat 02:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bunch more, some of which are boldly new. Comments? (This could really use more links to policy and guideline pages, if anyone wants to help out) Tuf-Kat 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide looks good

Everything here looks good to me. Jkelly 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I should note that I made some changes that more reflect current practice than the WikiProject page says. These include not mentioning Greatest Hits albums and the like -- which I think should be assumed not worthy of an article, but no one's ever followed that guidelines, so I've dropped it, and not linking to albums that don't exist. Some that may be particularly contentious include not allowing lists of performers in a genre article, not allowing external links to artist pages in genre articles, and not allowing lists of performers to include redlinks in most cases. Tuf-Kat 19:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More is needed

There are other consistency and usage and organisation issues in music articles beyond what is mentioned here. I tried to discuss some of them in User:Wasted Time R#Proper usage in music articles. Perhaps they could be added? Wasted Time R 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good ones, I adapted them onto the page. Tuf-Kat 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts, July 4

[edit] Capitalization

I'd like to explicitly strike down non-standard capitalization schemes once and for all. See problems with translations from Japanese and band-specific schemes.

The "first and last letter of each word" is capitalized? Am I reading this right?

• The last letter thing has been removed now, but I think it's correct. Songs like "Walk In" and "Hold On" would normally be capitalized that way, rather than "Walk in" and "Hold on". Tuf-Kat 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the last word should always be capitalized, so do the first. The current guideline fail to mention this. Also, there are few more things that are worth saying:

• prepositions are only capitalized when they are short and they are not used to form a phrasal verb.
• the word "to" isn't capitalized when used to form an infinitive.

References: [1] [2] [3] Jogers (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is complicated. Also, I'm trying to think of some more complicated examples... What about a title like "Halcyon + on + on"? Capitalize the second "On" but not the first? –Unint 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the completely Americo-centric capitalization scheme. Is Wikipedia-English a US product? British capitalization style is only the first letter of any title, and is commonly used throughout much of the English-speaking world. I'm sure this issue must crop up up throughout Wikipedia, and I don't object to the US-style capitalization, but I guess I don't see how/why the decision to use US style (and not British style) should be made within the Music section itself, rather than throughout Wikipedia (where, to be fair, the US style is the norm). - Wichitalineman 17 July 2006 (est)

[edit] Categorization

Shall we link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization? It hasn't received much maintenance lately, but it's the only remotely comprehensive categorization scheme for artists.

• I agree, and will put in a link. Maybe keeping it linked to here will promote work on it. Tuf-Kat 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

What about non-musician occupations in music? Record producers, managers, A&R, audio engineers, keyboard programmers... Also borderline are DJs who also produce music, and "musical projects" that aren't strictly bands but nevertheless work in popular music.

• I'm not sure there's really a standard for most of those. I'll broaden that guideline a bit though. Bands, albums, etc. are the ones that are most in need of clear guidance though, because a lot of them are badly disambiguated. Tuf-Kat 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

Year before or after the title of the work? EPs with albums or singles? I suppose WikiProject Musicians could go into more detail, if anyone were actually working on it...

• Yeah, we really need comprehensive guidelines on discographies, but no one's actually gotten consensus, AFAIK. Tuf-Kat 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Surely there are some highly comprehensive fansites (i.e. unofficial) that are worth linking to. ("Respected databases"?) Of course, it's also desirable to cut down on the fancruft and allowing borderline cases opens up all kinds of cans of worms.

Finally, thank you for finally getting policy against trivia sections up. –Unint 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've further expanded on the external links guidelines. It seems kind of messy and partially redundant now, so feel free to make or propose changes. Tuf-Kat 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability requirement for article requests.

There is a concern of mine regarding the lists of requested [music-related] articles. Is there any process in place which ensures that creating the requested articles is worthwhile? Should the onus of establishing notability rest on the entity requesting creation of such articles in the first place?

I suspect that there's a whole lot of weeding out to be done... Folajimi 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably correct. This isn't really the place for that, though. Try Wikipedia talk:Requested articles. Tuf-Kat 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Folajimi 03:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

I've attempted to make a cleanup template for WP:MUSTARD which can classify the article into various categories based on what needs to be cleaned up. The part I thought would be hard, using the switch ParserTemplate, was actually easy. But there's a huge blank space that I can't get rid of. You can see it in action at User:TUF-KAT/Test. Any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Circeus! I've updated this page with instructions. It's pretty simple, and it produces specific cleanup categories. Tuf-Kat 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And thanks Tony for the copyedit! I've made the categories and am going to start tagging some articles. I think one thing that would be nice would be instructions on how to fix the problems on the category page. Tuf-Kat 07:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "many" tag

As a passerby, I can't say that I think a cleanup tag with "many things wrong" is really useful to editors trying to clean things up. If the article really does have many things wrong (and many do), someone can just use the date in the MUSTARD tag, right? It's very easy for someone to check and correct specific problems, but it can be very difficult to look at an article that was tagged months ago and try to discern what the tagger thought was wrong. (BTW, this project is a very, very worthy endeavor.)--Will.i.am 00:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you have a good point, but I think most of the articles tagged "many" are full of obvious problems, and it's worth setting them apart because they are, by and large, the worst of the worst. I agree the system still needs a little tweaking though. Plus putting too many of the tags in makes for a category bloat, and makes the template a lot bigger. Tuf-Kat 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now when you use the many tag, it also displays three categories. So "many" only means "at least one more than what is listed". Tuf-Kat 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting - Quotes and capitalization

A couple of ambiguities about quotation marks around song titles that I think are worth resolving:

• Should bold formatting applied to the first occurence of the song title be placed around the quotation marks or not?
• For remixes, should the remix title go inside the quotation marks? (I'm thinking not, mostly due to a discussion I had with another editor...)

Also regarding remixes: how should they be capitalized? Should generic denotations like "radio edit" and "single mix" be capitalized? In the case of remixes identified with the remixer's name, does the "remix" at the end get capitalized? –Unint 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree these should be resolved. My two cents: quotemarks should not be bolded as they are not part of the article title; the remix descriptor should probably not go inside the quotation marks; remixes should be capitalized with the ordinary title according to ordinary guidelines, qualifiers like "radio edit" and "DJ X remix" are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. Tuf-Kat 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of images in discographies

/Discography #2 is now coming into play in a featured list nomination. There is also overarching discussion regarding fair use of images in all lists at WP:FUIL. Nothing seems to point toward any consensus yet, but certainly at least the result of the FL nomination will have to be factored into this proposal when the time comes (plus the FUIL discussion, whenever that wraps). –Unint 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization question

The capitalization guidelines are somewhat ambiguous, with WP:NC stating:

"Words of five letters or longer are generally capitalized, regardless of their part of speech."

And this page stating:

"Capitalize only those prepositions that are more than five letters long [...]"

My question is, what's up with "under/Under"?`--HarryCane 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistake, should be "five or more" letters on both pages. I've fixed it. Tuf-Kat 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Trivia? Really?

Trivia is one of the things I find most interesting when I read a wiki entry about a band. I like finding out what recording trick, or what noteworthy person appears on an album. While those two examples could be worked into the main article, there is often trivia that can't, but is still interesting and fits perfectly under a trivia heading.

I find it sad (I suppose that's the best word) that trivia is going to be removed, as it's a lot of fun and something I rarely see outside of wikipedia. I don't think wikipedia should be limiting either information or fun. I think the ability to add so much information and have a little fun are probably the two best things about wikipedia over traditional sources of information. SnaX 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Most trivia sections can and should be entirely incorporated into the article. Anything that can't is too trivial to cover - trivia sections amount to a list of facts without context, which is inherently unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated a lot of trivia sections, and I've yet to find anything worthy that I couldn't find a mainline place for somewhere. Wasted Time R 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to protest the no trivia requirement. In music articles it is sometimes useful as a place to put miscellaneous information that is difficult to place elsewhere. That such information can be placed elsewhere is irrelevant if no-one is willing to do it. Cedars 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things in writing good music articles is difficult – finding and citing good references, finding usable images, finding correct discography information, and so forth. Determining a good structure for an article is also not easy. But once you do it, you won't have trouble finding places for "miscellaneous information". And remember, not all miscellaneous information deserves to go into an encyclopedia article. Wasted Time R 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that part of the purpose of these guidelines are to help articles towards Wikipedia:Featured article status. Articles with lists of trivia are not going to pass the "brilliant prose" requirement. Jkelly 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If the project is about building good articles then a no trivia requirement is fine. And, after looking a little closer, I don't really have a problem with the idea. But what bought me here was the tag on Alexisonfire. The article is a mess and needs a clean-up tag, but the MUSTARD tag makes it sound like the article's main problem is its trivia section. Maybe a better choice would be to keep clean-up tag on the article page and just place a MUSTARD tag on the talk page as well. Cedars 08:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the tag at Alexisonfire implies Trivia is the only problem. It lists Trivia, Lists and References, and notes that there are other problems as well. Tuf-Kat 23:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You used a comma, the template didn't. Also I don't see where it notes there may be other problems as well. Cedars 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. What's unclear about "violates the following proposed MUSTARD guideline(s): Trivia Lists References Other guidelines at MUSTARD"? Tuf-Kat 23:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Alexisonfire article is a mess, but ignoring that, it's also a good example of why the trivia section can often contain interesting and/or humorous information that would be very difficult to put in the article proper. The trivia entry about the yetti tattoos is exactly the thing a fan of the band can (or at least used to be able to) find on wikipedia that can't be found anywhere else. Adding "oh, they all have yetti tattoos because..." in the members section would be akward at best. So, without a trivia section, that interesting bit of information would most likely (and certainly under these guidelines) be gone. I know there's no way you're going to change your mind(s), but I'm going to go ahead and make my case anyways. SnaX 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Easy. You create a section called ==Band image==, which works in the Yetti tattoos trivia item, the common wool sweaters trivia item, and a couple of things from the Videography section. You then explain how the band's image interrelates to their music, or to their fans, or to something. And if these image items really don't relate to anything, you junk them. Wasted Time R 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll give a good example of the insanity of trivia sections. Look at the current Led Zeppelin IV article, about one of the most famous and best-selling albums of all time. It has an Additional Notes section, clearly a Trivia section renamed at some point, with lots of items in it. None of them belong there! The items on the runes/symbols should be combined with the symbols detail in the history section, in a new section on just the symbols (for this one album, such a section is warranted). The items about being selected as one of the best albums ever should be moved into a new Awards and Achievements section, and grouped with some of the sales figures earlier in the article. These marks are important, and shouldn't be buried in a trivia section! The items about individual songs should be moved into those individual song articles (which each one has). That leaves only two items left, the one about the studio were it was recorded can go into History and the one about make-out music can be junked or put into a Cultural References section if you find more of them. See? All it takes is an eye for structure and organization. Wasted Time R 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I should add that 15 or 20 minutes of editing as above produced a better Led Zeppelin IV. Wasted Time R 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, something's wrong with the Led Zeppelin IV--the info box is screwed up or something. Nareek 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year in Music links

I want to point out that the idea that a "YEAR" link that is piped to "YEAR in music" (or whatever) is allowed under the Wikipedia Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates) and under the guidelines for piped links (see WP:PIPE). I personally find such links useful; in my view, they are no more an "Easter Egg" than a link that disambiguates "English" to "English (language)", rather than taking you to a page that contains all the different meanings of that adjective. Nareek 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album categories

What's general opinion on categories of albums by artist (e.g. Category:Beck albums)? Are they necessary if we have a seperate page for a discography? Aren't albums by year, genre, or record label enough? --EndlessVince 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustard?

Why is this called Mustard? heqs 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To reask the above question, does anybody know why? --T-rex 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass removal of Mustard tags

I am not involved with the project, but I thought I should mention here a pattern I observed: [[4]] shows a number of edits to articles on bands, changing the mustard template to a more general cleanup template. These seems to be articles with fair use images in the discography. I suspect I am seeing the tip of a more general dispute, and so I am stopping my own process of reverting these. Over to you. Notinasnaid 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And now an attempt to get the category deleted. Is there anybody there at all? Is this the project, working anonymously with no edit summaries? Notinasnaid 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the special cleanup tag never took off, so I'll remove any reference to it. Tuf-Kat 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it might help if the name was less ambigious. Everytime I see "MUSTARD" I want to vomit. Just means "bureacrats" to me. --kingboyk 11:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought it'd be easy to remember, which is primarily what I was looking for. In any case, if you really want to change it, I won't stand in the way. Tuf-Kat 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images should be unobtrusive?

I don't see why musical notation used as a direct example of the text cannot be displayed centered and at the full width (550px). Many notated examples are relatively wide. I propose we change the guideline to reflect the difference between images such as album covers or photos of musicians, and notated examples. Hyacinth 02:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the notation example would be disallowed by the current guidelines. In that case, the image would not be intrusive, IMO. But more specific guidelines about how to display things like musical notation would be a good addition anyway, so please do add something. I don't read music and am probably not really knowledgeable enough to write such guidelines. Tuf-Kat 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I moved and slightly adapted the stuff from the main WikiProject page. It's now in the images section. Feel free to make it its own section. Tuf-Kat 01:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bootlegs

Is there any policy on listing bootlegs or other "unauthorised" material in discographys? Some artists have very well known bootlegs e.g. Dylan's basement tapes so it can be notable. I know the stuff is technically illegal but so long as we're not promoting it or telling people where to get it is there any reason not to? Megamanic 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they are unauthorized is not a reason to include them, but neither is it a reason to avoid them. If they are encyclopedically notable, they should be included, regardless of what sort of recording they are. Tuf-Kat 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piped years

Boy, this is quite a change - back in 2003 I was told to change 1965 to 1965 (or ... in literature, or ... in movies) in art-related articles, and I've been doing it since. Is there discussion somewhere about why this was decided upon? - DavidWBrooks 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in 1963). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music). In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the 'year in music' articles.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/archive 1 for a discussion. Tuf-Kat 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATE does not say that one can't make YEAR in music|YEAR links; nor does WP:PIPE. In the past, when I've tried to get to the bottom of why the music pages forbid such links, I find discussions like the one linked to above where there is clearly no consensus against such links. Is it time to revisit this policy? Nareek 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I keep weighing on this, and I'll keep doing so until some kind of conclusion is reached. This time, I have some new ideas.

• You have to know about it for it to be useful, and the use of this method is not transparent to some readers, who will only see a linked year and will not necessarily know about mouse-over tooltips. In addition, context is utterly lost when the text is copied-and-pasted. Also, I don't know how screen readers work with Wikipedia (WP:WAI is not completely clear), but accessibility should also be considered (and WP:WAI does say to minimize piped link code for this purpose).
• It's frequently useless in context, as most music of a given year is not mentioned in the corresponding "year in music" article.
• It encourages piped "year in music" links in full dates (such as [[March 23]], [[1987 in music|1987]]). This looks bad and also breaks date preferences.
• Is there any reason to link years in discographies at all (especially when linking date fragments is discouraged in the first place)? Does anyone actually click on such links?
• To combine the first and last points above, pipe-linking years could easily make newbies think that it's good practice to link all instances of years. –Unint 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find these links relevant to the context in most cases but I'm not going to remove any more of them entirely without broad consensus (I believe my recent AWB edits triggered this discussion). But would anyone object to fixing links like [[March 23]], [[1987 in music|1987]] to allow readers' date preferences to work as per WP:DATE recommendation? Jogers (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When a date is wikilinked for date preference purposes, it should not have a piped link for the year--that defeats the purpose. And certainly not every year on its own needs to be wikilinked--they should, indeed, be those that contribute to context.

I would say that it is generally helpful to wikilink the year that a band gets together or the year an album is released, in case someone is interested in what was generally going on at the time--and I would say that it's more helpful to link to "YEAR in music" rather than "YEAR", because you're getting the most relevant context--the musical context. If people would rather get the general historical context, it's always just one more click away. Nareek 15:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that links to sole years are not helpful at all. I don't understand why most articles are cluttered with tons of them. Links to years in music can be useful but piping them in the discussed fashion is problematic. The current guideline makes much sense. Instead of piping every date in an article to "years in music" it is much more useful to thoughtfully place the links in a transparent way like in the example on the Project's page. I find this a very elegant solution. Jogers (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the imposition of parenthetical "See YEAR in music" references is awkward and contrary to the Wikipedia model, which is to make links as unobstrusive as possible.

Conceptually, the YEAR in music pages should be thought of a subsections of the YEAR pages; they're only on their own page because it's more convenient to break it up that way. The equivalent in a print encyclopedia would be a reference to the music chapter of a yearbook. Nareek 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The first point above is interesting. Arguments against these links make sense too but I don't have strong feelings about this anymore. Jogers (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track Listings?

I've been reading guidelines, looking for guidance on how to attribute LP track listings. When one has an LP in hand, and is documenting tracks and times, what attribution is preferred by the community here?

thanks very much Sbgardne 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See WikiProject Albums. Jogers (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation among albums

Hi, I have a case from WP:RM that I'm considering, and I'd like to ask people's opinions here. We've got articles on two albums called "Destination": Destination (album), by Ronan Keating, and Destination (FictionJunction YUUKA), by FictionJunction YUUKA. It seems to me that one of two cases would be ideal: either one album should be disambiguated as "(album)" and the other as "(Band album)", with a dablink atop the first, or else they should both be disambiguated as "(Band album)" with a dab page at "(album)". It seems the latter case would be preferable if there's no clear primary topic, and the former if there is.

How does MUSTARD handle such cases? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, WP:ALBUM used to recommend disambiguated by date, so Album (1992 album) or Album (2007 album). I think that most people disambiguate by artist instead, and that does seem more intuitive. Jkelly 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, WP:ALBUM helps (lots of handy pages around here!), but still leaves the question of whether Destination (album) should be a dab page or redirect to the Ronan album. I think I'll try the redirect with a dablink, and if someone objects, it's easy to make it a dab page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Special:Allpages/Destination, there is one more album titled that, as well as a handful of other things that might be called "Destination". Maybe a full-blown disambiguation page is in order. –Unint 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've made Destination (album) into a dab page, listing the three albums that are titled simply "Destination", but I didn't list all the albums titled "Destination: Foo"; there seem to be a lot of those. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "the Beatles"

Just discovered that WikiProject The Beatles has reversed the capitalization policy and that "The Beatles" is no longer correct. I'm going to have to find something equally iconic to replace the capitalized "The" usage. –Unint 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance reveals that neither The Clash nor The Doors are internally consistent. Does anyone know an article with solid consensus, offhand? –Unint 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)