Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] capitalisation of band names

based on a discussion on whether or not the name of the icelandic quartet amiina should be capitalised i would argue the following

1. band names should not be considered as trademarks and therefore the redirect to MOS:TM should be replaced by a specific guideline for band names

2. as to how the guideline should be interpreted, i have argued the following

the guideline should not apply in cases where a band name specifically deviates from standard capitalisation. the guideline exist so that an article (or a group of articles) on say The Beatles uses only one way of writing that name rather than multiple versions (like the Beatles, The beatles, the beatles), it exist in other words to provide consistency. however when a name specifically does NOT follow standard rules on capitalisation, consistency should be reached by using that form of the name. such a reading and application of the guideline leads to both consistency and correct information, which after all should be our main goal.

in other words, when it is clearly the intention of a band to have it's names spelled in a way that deviates from standard practice, conventional capitalisation should not apply.

amiina is a good example of such a case, dEUS is another. L!nus 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I argued in our private discussion on this, while we could adapt your proposed capitalization scheme, it cannot be considered to be an interpretation of the current guideline (which is at WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization). The current guideline defers to MOS:TM, which explicitly covers cases with all-lowercase names, such as the one we were discussing, using the examples adidas and craigslist.
As for your proposal to change the guideline, I'd like to ask why you feel the guideline should not match MOS:TM. Why should all-lowercase band names not use normalized capitalization, given that all-lowercase trademarks do so? Also note that album/single/track names all use normalized capitalization. Given all this, I believe it would be more consistent to normalize capitalization, than to create an exception for band names. --PEJL 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We’re not here for the sake of the companies, bending the the whim of however they want to style their names and their product names. We’re here for the readers. Readers’ interests should always be at the top of your priorities. I don’t buy your correctness argument. I’m not willing to accept that a trademark owner always knows the correct way to render its own trademark. Where does it end? It ends with the capitalization rules you learned in elementary school. Everything after that is marketing hype. You seem as though you know how the original creators intended something to be capitalized. Have you actually asked the individuals who invented the names? The advertising staff who made up the promotional posters aren’t the same people as the ones who decided what a product, company, or program would be named.

the above quote is taken from the MOS:TM discussion page and is exactly the reason why there should be a separate guideline for band names. i am not willing to discuss the trappings and pitfalls in that argument when it applies to trademarks, but i do know that when applied to a band name it is incorrect. bands DO know how they are named and they know best. if a band chooses a name that does not follow standard spelling rules than that's the choice of the band. if you call that a "whim" or a "marketing hype" you pass judgement and loose the neutral point. as for the readers' interest, surely that lies in getting correct information.
if a band was to name itself aBc dE that would be the only correct way to write it. converting it to Abc De would be just a deliberate misspelling and would provide incorrect information. this is not about all-lowercase band names, it is about all non-standardspelling band names.
and if you care to know, it is my opinion that album/track names should be written as the artist intents them to be written. (but lets discuss one thing at the time, shall we) L!nus 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
i take note of the fact that you reverted the capitalisation in the amiina article, yet dEUS remains unaffected. i would really like to hear your argument for allowing an exception to the guideline in one case but not in another. --L!nus 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I restored the capitalization in the Amiina article, per the current guideline. If the guideline changes, we can change it back. I guess my argument is that one article in violation of the guideline is better than two articles in violation. I'm sure there are lots of other articles that violate this guideline. I've never promised to correct the capitalization of all band names on Wikipedia. --PEJL 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
that is sheer randomness. although i don't expect you to go through all and every article about all and every band to look up violations to to the guideline and correct them, the least you can do if (and this is obviously the case) you feel so strongly about following the guideline is applying it when a case of violation is pointed out to you. as matters stand i see no reason why i shouldn't claim precedent here, all i need to do so is one exception to the guideline that is allowed to remain. --L!nus 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not going to go around editing every article that you point out to me. My unwillingness to do so should obviously not affect the validity of the guideline. In this case, as I've previously noted, the guideline that affects Amiina is the one at MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter that begins "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized...". That guideline for obvious reasons does not apply to dEUS. --PEJL 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
again, that is pure randomness, i see no difference between amiina and dEUS, both are band names that do not follow normal capitalisation rules, there is no rationale at all to allow the one (lowercase initial+capital body) and not the other (all lowercase). also your unwillingness to change dEUS rather hollows out your claim that an exception to the guideline in the case of amiina is unacceptable. i am sorry, but i honestly do not see any reason not to revert to amiina. --L!nus 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't see any difference, yet different guidelines apply. I don't feel any more obligation to edit dEUS than I do any of the album articles at User:Jogers/List5. (Note that that list is actively addressed. If it was not, the number of articles would be in the thousands. See version from one month ago.) Would you consider me a hypocrite if I fixed the capitalization of only one of those articles? --PEJL 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
i would deem it an act of randomness that has nothing to do with applying a guideline. what i do find (mildly) hypocrite is your statement You don't see any difference, yet different guidelines apply. a guideline should be the same for similar cases. again it hollows out your previous claims (in this case: why allow all lowercase band names to remain all lowercase while not allowing all lowercase trademarks to remain as such). it is thus yet another reason to have a separate guideline for bandnames. --L!nus 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having a hard time following exactly what you're saying. Please try to distinguish between what the current guideline is and what you think the guideline should be changed to. We should generally follow the guidelines. That does not mean that any one of us are obliged to edit any articles that don't currently follow the guidelines. --PEJL 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
i am perfectly aware of what the current guideline is and what i think it should be. i was merely pointing out the arbitrary/random nature of your argument against an exception in the case of amiina, or if you like, i turned your own argument if you feel so strongly about this i urge you to argue for the guideline to be changed around into if you feel so strongly about this one case, i urge you to change all other exceptions, but as i said before: i do not expect you to do so. it is however not the issue of this discussion. what should be discussed here is: at present the guideline draws a line right through a certain set of band names (i.e. those that do not follow standard rules of capitalisation) rather than drawing the line between two different sets of band names (those that follow standard capitalisation and those that do not) or if you like:
at present
band names that follow s.r.o.c. + all lowercase band names -line drawn here- band names that do not follow s.r.o.c. bar all lowercase band names
as it should be (imo)
band names that follow s.r.o.c. -line drawn here- band names that do not follow s.r.o.c.
such a situation would a. be much clearer and b. make life easier for everyone involved (i.e. a discussion like this one would not take place). --L!nus 20:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) l!nus, I believe I am following the case you are presenting here, and I think that you have some valid points. On balance, however, I think it best that there not be a specific exemption from MOS:TM for names of bands. Much of the time, yes, a band may choose its name including how it is capitalized, but often it is not different from a company name or a product, in that it is decided at a marketing or record exec company level. I respectfully disagree with your point that Wikipedia editors changing a band's capitalization amounts to "a deliberate misspelling"—spelling of a name is consistent in a way that formatting (such as capitalization) is not. For example, sometimes bands have logos that use a non-standard capitalization scheme, but their website and press releases use standard capitalization, and it can even change over time. That is not the case with spelling of the name. For simplicity's sake there are strong advantages, in my view, to using consistent capitalization approaches across Wikipedia. By the way, this is not some unusual approach—as far as I can tell, it is what almost all newspapers do. Here is an example of what I mean, where dEUS is rendered as Deus. The fact that editors have not gotten around to changing the article on dEUS is, in my mind, not evidence that there is hypocrisy or a lack of consensus about using standard English capitalization approaches—which is, again, what most major newspapers use. --Paul Erik 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the band has a consistent spelling on (almost) all their official works? For example Of Montreal are spelled almost everywhere with a lowercase "o", to the point that even last.fm changed it on all their entries of the band and yet here we insist to spell it incorrectly because a guideline says so. I think the same applies to "dEUS", we should value artist wanted capitalization for the sake of correctness more than any guidelines. In the end, it's a question of having the right spelling or the grammatically correct one. I vote for the former one because Wikipedia's goal should be to be correct, not a dictionary. --SoWhy Talk 08:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul Erik, you are correct, there are undoubtedly bands that are marketing-made, but that does not mean that most musicians/bands do not retain their "(artistic) integrity" (something that can't be said of most companies) so lets not throw out the child with the bathing water. you are also right in pointing out that one should not confuse spelling with design, as an example one could refer to Blur, who have used the same distinct "logo" of their name on all their albums (bar 13, which lacks the name blur altogether on the cover), they do however write their name as Blur when not using that logo, in other words s.r.o.c apply. the examples i have used here however do not use such a deviant logo while using normal capitalisation elswhere, they spell their name consistently in a non-s.r.o.c. way. in other words: the spelling of their name is consistent and includes a specific way to capitalise it. as SoWhy says above (and as i have said myself) wikipedia's goal should be to be correct, the only correct way to write a non-s.r.o.c. band name is to write it as such.
as for the guidelines that are followed by newspapers: newspapers have a different purpose than a encyclopaedia, the guidelines they follow do not necessarily apply here. --L!nus 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you Google "Of Montreal", you'll find that we're not alone in that. Rollingstone, Amazon.com and others all capitalize the o. LaraLove 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for your thoughtful comments in response. I'm not sure how pleased I am at your assertion that you two (SoWhy and l!nus) are arguing for what is "correct" so by implication I am arguing for what is incorrect! But perhaps that is an opportuntity for a reminder that Wikipedia is concerned with "verifiability, not truth". And that brings us to sources...
The reason I brought up newspapers (and my apologies for not elaborating) is that they are an example of reliable, secondary sources. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be relying on those, rather than self-published sources (such as a band's website, press releases or concert announcements), this argues in favour of capitalizing in the way that the secondary sources do. Granted, we are not blindly following newspaper's styles of formatting here, but I think that this is a relevant point. One relevant effect might be a reader's first impression when coming to the article. If I had arrived at the article on the band Kiss when it was called KISS, before it was moved to adhere to our Manual of Style, knowing that KISS is not an acronym I would have thought, "Oh, here is an article that's probably edited mostly by fans, mostly relying on self-published sources like the band's website", but coming across it named as Kiss I am more likely to have a first impression of "here is an article that is using secondary sources and it is therefore more likely to be written from a neutral point of view". Similarly, if I had just happened upon dEUS, instead of finding out about it through this discussion, I think my first impression—unfair, perhaps—would lead me to take the article less seriously than had it been named Deus (band). Unfortunately, even a band that chooses non-standard capitalization for sound artistic reasons can end up being lumped with those that are doing it as a marketing gimmicks, since it has been done in that way so often by companies and musical artists.
Proper nouns in English are capitalized for good reasons, not least of which is that it makes the words—usually what is most relevant—stand out when you take a quick glance at a paragraph.
I'll stop there for now. :) In my view, the long-standing consensus of using standard capitalization conventions, as per MOS:TM, ought not to be changed. --Paul Erik 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
1. you wont hear me say that you are arguing the incorrect, rather you argue for an inappropriate correctness. you argue for conformity to the english capitalisation rules even when that runs against the implicit or explicit wished of a band, while my argument is that we should make an exception to those rules when it is clear that that is the intention of a band.
2. secondary sources: would you then argue that newspapers know better than a band how their name should be spelled? and to expand a bit: yes, wiki-articles should contain correct and verifiable information and if that can be extracted from secondary sources much the better, we do not (and we should not) have to accept blindly what a band has to say about itself. however when it comes to the issue of their name, if a band decides on having a non-s.r.o.c. name, retaining that specific form of the name is no breach against the principal of neutrality. i would even say it's quite the contrary: retaining such a form implies we do not pass a judgement on it, re-capitalisation on the other hand implies that it is merely a marketing gimmick and even when a band has no such intentions it is still lumped together in that category.
3. reader's first impression: had the article on dEUS used Deus my first impression would be "this is the wrong article, where is the disamb. page?", my second impression would be "they can't even get the name correct, so how reliable will the other content of this article be?" and that reaction might or might not (i haven't in fact read the dEUS article) be just as unfair as your first reaction. but that just means that passing judgement upon first impression is not a good thing, it never is.
4. capitalised words stand out: i have read that same argument on the MOS:TM discussion page, but in fact (imo) it has little relevance here. someone coming upon (for example) the article on amiina (either because he/she searched for it directly or because a link was followed from an other article) will not have to glance over it to see what it is about, that person will already know that it is about a certain band, hence he/she will not be put off by a non-s.r.o.c. name. when it comes to an article in a newspaper, yes then there is probably sound reason to capitalise the name.
5. i note that on all the talk pages of all the examples (and we can add ABBA to that list) put forward here (bar dEUS, but there it is probably just a matter of time) this same discussion is taking place or has taken place in the past, and no doubt it will reoccur in the future. in the end for some articles people will decide to follow the guideline, while for others they wont. surely that's not right? if the guideline is changed as i suggest, it will end all such discussion and it will lead to consistency and stability. maybe we would do well in making the people involved in such discussions aware of the discussion over here. --L!nus 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Hopefully articles other than Amiina will refer to the band name. The name should be the same on all articles. The argument for having the name stand out applies to those other articles as well. I know from experience that some readers find it difficult to read sentences without proper capitalization (such as your messages, or a sentence in the middle of a paragraph starting "amiina..."
5. Discussion would in no way end if we changed this guideline, it would just mean different editors would complain about the guideline. I wouldn't rule out that the amount of discussion would increase if we made that change. Consider that those who favor the current guideline are less likely to discuss it than those who disagree with it. --PEJL 12:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
4. i am not sure what you are implying here, but you can trust me: once this matter has been resolved (no matter what the outcome is) all such links will conform to the guideline that is decided on. and as for standing out, as a link it will do that in any case, capitalised or not. (and to me personally capitalisation has no added effect, if anything (especially while reading text on a screen) it breaks the flow of a sentence or a line of argument, and i do know plenty of people who feel the same. if you like i am more than willing to discuss the sense or nonsense of capitalisation in general, but this discussion is not the place for that)
5. this discussion is far from over, i would say it has only just begun, at present far too little voices have been heard. but in the end (and it might take a while) an agreement will come out of it (again, no matter what that is). if those who favour the current guideline as it is do not contribute, than that's their fault. if someone feels the current guideline should not be changed he/she should raise arguments pro the current guideline or contra a change. --L!nus 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this may come down to the question, as you noted already, of "Where do we draw the line?" You and I would like to draw it at a different place. I expect we would all agree that Limp Bizkit should not be renamed Limp biscuit to conform to standard spelling, and I get the impression that you think that naming amiina as Amiina is as inappropriate (or nearly as inappropriate) as changing the spelling. We might have to agree to disagree on that point. I see spelling and formatting as quite different. If a band always (on their website and press releases) wrote one letter in their band name in red, or in italics—and said in interviews that rendering it that way was the correct name of the band—I still would not think that Wikipedia should format their name that way, even if the technology to allow it exists.
I also think that wading into questions of "the band's intention", or "artistic integrity" versus a "marketing gimmick", would be immensely difficult, and would more often than not have to rely upon original research. To cite an example of this kind of difficulty (someone brought this up in a previous discussion), it was long assumed that E. E. Cummings wanted his name rendered as e e cummings but it later was revealed that this was what his publishers and his fans wanted, not him. --Paul Erik 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally with Paul on this. I think the argument that a band name is not a trademark is blatantly false (many may not be registered trademarks, but not all trademarks are or have to be). The current guideline is correct and proper, and the counterarguments are, in my judgment, utterly without merit. So utterly without merit that I'm having a hard time finding a way to participate in the discussion without violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. In particular, I will refrain from comment on the suggestion that this has something to do with "artistic integrity". Xtifr tälk 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul Erik: you point out that one should not confuse between spelling and formatting, as i have said above, that is correct (see my Blur example), however, capitalisation forms an integral part of how one writes a name, whereas colour or font does not. it is just that in most cases it is not very obvious because most names conform to s.r.o.c. but that does not mean capitalisation isn't a part of how we spell a name.
as i have said before: the guideline is not a means to it's own end, it is here to provide consistency throughout wikipedia: so we have always The Beatles (rather than a mixture of different spellings) besides The Who and Blur and so on. but all these names conform to s.r.o.c. (as such, i personally would write them all in all-lowercase, because that's the rule i apply and therefore the rule they should conform to). some names do not follow these rules and therefore should not be treated as such (for example, i do write dEUS or ABBA as such, even when that deviates from my general habits). doing that is not the same as allowing inconsistency (given that they are written as such everywhere in wikipedia).
in the end people take what they see for granted, they will assume Deus, Amiina and so on are the correct names and that dEUS or amiina are merely logos or (even worse) a gimmick, they are neither, they are the only correct way to write these names.
(as an aside, i did a little survey amongst my colleagues yesterday and i asked them: "would you write an all-lowercase name as such?" and they all said: "yes off course". then i asked them: "do you think that an encyclopaedia should capitalise it because names as a rule are capitalised?" and they all said: "no off course not, that would be wrong".) --L!nus 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see how any of this is relevant to musical groups per se. Why should marketing gimmicks used by pop musicians be treated any differently than marketing gimmicks used by anyone else? I generally write "NeXTStep" for the predecessor of OS/X, as do most people I know, but I'm not over on the Software Wikiproject trying to argue that they should make special exceptions to the general guidelines to endorse my weird (if common) habits. Xtifr tälk 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

it's not a weird habit, it's your common sense that tells you to write things the way they ought to be written. for the rest i am just going to point out this. --L!nus 16:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but it doesn't address my question: why are you bringing this up here instead of on MOS:TM? I don't object to changing Wikiwide standards; I merely object to creating special standards for musicians that fly in the face of existing Wikistandards. BTW, by my reading, MOS:TM is actually somewhat neutral (or at least vague) on what should be done with "dEUS". It is, however, quite clear on "amiina". Xtifr tälk 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
the reason for bringing it up here rather than on MOS:TM is given in my second comment in this discussion. but if you like: there is a distinction between the solely and purely commercial intentions of companies and the intentions of artists. as it is, i can somewhat understand and agree with the reasoning given in the quote from the MOS:TM discussion page posted at the top WHEN it applies to trademarks sensu stricto, but i totally disagree with it when applied to band names.
band names fall in one category with (pseudonymous) names for solo artist (such as david bowie, badly drawn boy, j.k. rowling or bell hooks). they are neither personal names (s.s.) or trademarks (s.s.) but are rather a nom de guerre. if you are going to allow special standards for one subsection of such names (pen names (as per bell hooks), there is no reason why you wouldn't allow it for all such names.
as for dEUS, the guideline is perfectly clear on the matter, i don't see how you can read vagueness into it. --L!nus 10:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I see capitalization as more closely akin to formatting; you see it as more closely akin to spelling. In my view, capitalization is not an integral part of how a band spells its name.
I would also argue, like Xtifr, that band names are more closely akin to trademarks of products and companies, and less akin to personal names. I know it might sound as if I'm passing judgement—that bands are doing what they do for commercial reasons, using non-SROC as a marketing gimmick—but as I said before, I am not sure how it can really be sorted out what is for reasons related to "artistic integrity" and what is not.
Wikipedia will always have some inconsistencies; that's the nature of such a large project. I would probably argue that it should be Bell Hooks and Abba, to tell you the truth. (There may be more complexities such as the argument that the letters of ABBA each represent the first name of a band member, but I have not read through the Talk page.)
To add to the complicated nature of this (perhaps), a band's punctuation is treated as more related to spelling than to formatting—so it is Panic! at the Disco and Peter Bjorn and John (no comma) even though these do not conform to standard rules of punctuation. (But we do not go so far as to accept P!nk with her upside-down exclamation point because it is seen as a "stylized" i; see the lead sentence of Pink (singer).) These inconsistencies I do not find to be problematic; again, it involves viewing punctuation within a name as akin to its spelling. This does help me, though, to relate to your position that capitalization forms an integral part of how one writes a name.
With both the capitalization guidelines and the punctuation-within-a-name conventions that Wikipedia has chosen (unless there is consensus to change), this is not something all that unusual (and LaraLove also pointed this out, in the case of Of Montreal)—it is what most newspapers and music magazines also do, as far as I can tell. --Paul Erik 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
we seem to agree on a lot of points with the exception of the topic i brought up, it's ironic and frustrating. i see both punctuation and capitalisation as equally vital parts of how a bandname is written, so i am glad that deviant punctuation is allowed, but imo that makes the case for deviant capitalisation even stronger (btw, in the case of pink a quick glance on her website makes it clear that p!nk is indeed no more than a stylised way of writing the name, so there is no doubt that wikip. should have pink).
as for the gimick/integrity issue, wouldn't it be preferable to let the reader make up his/her own mind? in other words: allowing all non-s.r.o.c. names to stand as such.
the way thing are now it goes like this (first column=how a band writes its name, second column=how it is written in wikip.):
Abc!de==>Abc!de
abcde==>Abcde
abc!de==>Abc!de
abCde==>either AbCde or Abcde
AbCde==>either AbCde or Abcde
i see no difference between any of these names, and yet they are treated as such in wikipedia. wouldn't it be far better to treat them all alike: either let them all stand as a band intends them, or respell them all to conform to standard rules (i think it is clear what i would prefer) --L!nus 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You write, "as for the gimick/integrity issue, wouldn't it be preferable to let the reader make up his/her own mind? in other words: allowing all non-s.r.o.c. names to stand as such." If we're going to let the reader (or editor) make up his/her/its own mind, why should we do so only for musicians? Some people may feel that companies are entitled to artistic integrity as well. (Others, including me, may question whether any musician has ever used peculiar typography for the sake of artistic integrity, rather than as a promotional, attention-getting device.) Even those who accept the artistic integrity argument, though, may prefer that this be discussed on MOS:TM. Not all artists are musicians, so the topic of artistic integrity clearly has a broader focus than just musicians. Which again, suggests that MOS:TM is the proper place for this discussion. Xtifr tälk 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Xtifr's question "why should we do so only for musicians?" is spot-on. Giving a subject (or a certain class of subjects) special treatment raises neutrality concerns, that need to be met with compelling, practical reasons. On the question whether Wikipedia should emulate non-standard typography, the community appears to have made a decision, reflected by a number of guidelines, that fairly consistently favor standard formatting. WP:MOS-TM is only one of them, though arguably the most detailed/explicit of the bunch, hence a lot of WikiProjects base their subsequent guidelines on it. Personally, I think the only real scope for improving the current state would be in turning WP:MOS-TM into a more generally themed entity, covering all sorts of proper nouns, names, titles and so forth, as it is already routinely applied to them anyway. - Cyrus XIII 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

where the discussion takes place is a mere technicality, it started here because this is where the problem arises (i.e. in band names that do not follow s.r.o.c., but you might have noticed however that i have widened the discussion to cover all artist names). if you want to move it somewhere else, that's fine for me. as for the neutrality concerns, compare what i have said with what Xtifr says in his last post. --L!nus 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

btw, the argument that the guideline is widely accepted in the community is flawed at best. given the discussion and debate that occur or have occurred on the talk pages of the examples given here clearly show that there is no general agreement on this guideline (when it comes to band/artist names). --L!nus 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

well? --L!nus 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well what? --PEJL 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
what do you think?
should i take the absence of argument as a silent agreement on a change? --L!nus 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose a change. I was silent simply because I did not have anything to add that would not have been repeating myself. I will add, though, that I agree with what Cyrus XIII said above. --Paul Erik 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Two points: sub-policies or sub-guidelines like this tend to watched by far fewer people than the main policies and guidelines. So there's less participation and less chance of coming to any meaningful consensus. At the same time, it's always the sub-guidelines where people come to complain about the application of broader guidelines to their particular area of interest. Sometimes, such complaints are valid, but in general, you see a much higher level of whining at the sub-guidelines, and that should not be taken as general evidence of dissatisfaction with the guidelines. It's simply that everyone who might object will do so here. Those who are happy with the guideline probably aren't even watching. For this reason, changes which bring a sub-guideline like this more into line with broader guidelines can generally be considered pretty non-controversial and can be accepted with minimal debate, but changes that take it out of alignment with more general guidelines should be viewed with great suspicion, and should only be accepted with either near-unanimous agreement (which we clearly don't have in this case) or after a much broader discussion (say, at the village pump or WP:MOS-TM, or possibly even WP:RFC). Xtifr tälk 05:42, 10 October 2007 (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)
so it's pretty much: the guideline is as it is, and that's the end of it. no matter that it results in incorrect information, that it is inconsistent and that it is not neutral. fine, keep on editing the form, no matter what the content says. --L!nus 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not satisfied with this outcome, L!nus has now started ignoring this guideline. See Amiina and Deus (band). --PEJL 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
do you think i find the present situation agreeable? i am just as dissatisfied with it as you are. but i am merely doing what you keep on doing (i.e. pushing a point by editing rather than discussion). --L!nus 20:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that I am applying the guideline that is in effect, and you are inventing more and more far-fetched reasons to not apply the guideline. Please stop being disruptive. --PEJL 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
the difference is that you fail to accept that the guidelines do not cover everything (and are not intended to do so) they are guidelines, not laws. i simply point out why some cases fall outside the scope of them. those reasons are far from far fetched, they come from applying common sense. --L!nus 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in that this guideline doesn't cover everything. It covers band names, but it doesn't cover authors such as bell hooks, per common sense. Would you mind explaining why exactly you feel that the guideline should not apply to Amiina or Deus (band)? --PEJL 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) A style guide for music related articles that does not cover pen names of writers ... truly mind-boggling. But seriously, as I mentioned earlier, the Manual of Style is rather consistent on these matters. While WP:MUSTARD will obviously not be applied to the Bell Hooks article, WP:MOS-CL and WP:MOS-PN can and probably will at some point. Wikipedia is always work in progress and one cannot expect every article to conform to all these guidelines at any time. Hence bringing up individual articles in discussions such as this one does little to prove any lack of consensus for a style guideline, it just heightens the probability of these articles to be edited accordingly rather sooner than later. Of course, as a proponent of a Manual of Style that favors standard English over idiosyncratic formatting, I certainly don't mind that kind of inspiration for additions to my to-do list. - Cyrus XIII 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

so suddenly it is just about bandnames again? how odd. --L!nus 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

and to return to the core: what is wrong with changing the guideline as follows

Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)), except when it is clear the artist(s) meant it to be written otherwise

what can you possibly have against such a change? it provides correctness, it's consistent, it's neutral, it's CLEAR. the only problem i can see in this is that this means someone can't just say "not a standard form, i will reformat" but actually has to find out whether or not something is a misspelling or not. but then again, shouldn't every edit be made with knowledge? --L!nus 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I've told you a number of times by now, you need to distinguish between what the guideline currently is (de lege lata) and what some are arguing that it should be (de lege ferenda). As for your proposal to change it, I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said. --PEJL 08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly is the logic in deriving a rule from a guideline that states something like "even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" and then saying the exact opposite in the following clause? - Cyrus XIII 10:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
because that's the only problematic point in an otherwise fine set of guidelines and it simply does not apply to artists. unless you want to maintain (like Xtifr) that they are only in it for the money (which is, in the end, the bottom line of the only reason thus far given to keep the guideline as it is. i would say that is a rather bleak point of view, and it makes me wonder why you would even care about a project dealing with musicians). --L!nus 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And now L!nus is inserting pointy notes into the articles, full of grammar errors. See Amiina. --PEJL 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
what is wrong with putting up that note? it is a clear statement to prevent further reversion issues. full of grammar errors? i noted a missing initial capital T and who's instead of whose? sorry but english is not my native language. sorry if i typed quicker than my thoughts. --L!nus 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which is what adding that note does. Your point seems to be that our guideline is so awful that it requires such a qualifier to affected articles, which is intended to prove how the guideline can't be reasonable. Please consider the possibility that others don't agree with that assessment. --PEJL 15:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
it's a simple, matter of fact statement: their correct name is amiina, at present wikipedia does not allow that hence the correctness of the article is compromised. since when is being correct disruptive?--L!nus 15:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet above you claimed that it's not incorrect to capitalize the name. Quoting: "you wont hear me say that you are arguing the incorrect, rather you argue for an inappropriate correctness" --PEJL 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I reckon the standard capitalization rules ought to apply to band names. It is enough to simply note the alternate form of writing the name in the body of the article, such as in this version of the Deus/dEUS article. Strobilus 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Official Guideline?

This MUSTARD thing seems to have consensus (at least most of it) and is very helpful. I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:MUSTARD (or a more formal name), because it shouldn't reside on a WikiProject subpage. Also, can we tagged with {{style-guideline}}? Rocket000 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it does repeat/link to MoS a lot, so maybe we should leave this where it is, but merge/update information to those pages so they're consistent and in agreement. Rocket000 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend merging the stuff at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) here, and make this the official MoS page for music, and I agree it could probably be tagged as a style guideline. 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUF-KAT (talk • contribs)

[edit] Album title

When it comes to album titles like Timbaland Presents Shock Value, Eminem Presents the Re-Up, and Dr. Dre Presents the Aftermath, I don't think the "x presents" bit is part of the album title. I think it's more of an introduction as opposed to the actual name. Is there anyone that opposes this? Spellcast 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the task of an encyclopedia to determine how a possibly ambiguous title should be interpreted. We have sources for that. Whatever is used consistently throughout reliable sources is the title that we should use. And when in doubt: don't change it. But create a redirect and note the other interpretation(s) in the first few sentences. (This is my interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it may be wrong.) -- Pepve 22:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations around song titles in track lists on album pages?

Yes or no? I looked but couldn't find a policy on it. (Personally I prefer them without quotes there, but will defer to official policy.) Torc2 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:ALBUM#Track listing. --PEJL 13:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! The only problem is reading that brought up a bunch of other questions.
  • A track that is a medley of multiple songs should be inside one set of quotes, like this: "Song 1/Song 2". - OK, but medley has a specific meaning, usually where multiple songs are combined. What if the songs are distinct and are just indexed unusually, like with Lazer Guided Melodies or Lysol?
  • Untitled tracks should be listed as Untitled (without quotes). - Should untitled be capitalized, and would a CD with an untitled hidden track be listed as untitled hidden track, Untitled hidden track or Untitled Hidden Track?
-- -- Torc2 (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the first issue, I would suggest to ignore the rules, using WP:IAR when the rules are unworkable in a certain situation. For the second issue, I think it should be 'Untitled' and 'Untitled hidden track'. Thus capitalizing the first letter because it is the item of a list, and not capitalizing the rest because it is not a title. -- Pepve (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

There are too many italics used in this page. It's supposed to be a style guide. Italicizing things for emphasis is therefore confusing. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- Pepve (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album bolding

Albums are obviously italicised in sentences, but sometimes they're also bolded in discography tables. For example, should Whoa! Nelly, Folklore, and Loose be bolded in Nelly Furtado discography#Albums? Spellcast (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered that too, and am unsure of the answer. Some of the discographies that have achieved featured status—Pavement discography, for example—have the album titles bolded in tables, while others—Gwen Stefani discography, for one—do not. I have a slight preference for keeping it as italics only, in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) which I think suggests that we keep bolding to a minimum. What do others think? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I would generally say no, unless there was some compelling reason to do it that way. With a band like Pavement, or Swervedriver if we were to list everything chronologically, there's a ton of singles and EPs and only a few albums. In that case, I could understand if an editor might want to bold the albums to indicate the major releases, though I probably wouldn't do it that way. Torc2 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply put: more bold is more bad. The more markup is introduced to a page, the more cluttered and incomprehensible it gets. Bold face should only be used when necessary, it is in no way necessary to make each item of a list bold. -- Pepve (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that yes, in this case bold is useful. Take the Nelly Furtado discography mentioned above, for example. The first table, Albums, has alot of info in it: release dates, formats, lots of chart positions, and lots of certifications. But all of that information is based what release it's talking about: in this case the album's title. So, amidst all this other information, a simple use of bold clarifies immediately what all this information relates to. In most cases, you might want to do such a table differently, to isolate the main topic of each row to be as clear as possible, such as:
Year Title Notes Chart positions Sales and certifications
UWC[1] U.S.[2] CAN[2] UK[3] GER[4] AUS[5] FRA[6]
2000 Whoa, Nelly! 17 24 2 2 14 4 37 Worldwide sales: 5 million
CRIA certification: 4× platinum
RIAA certification: 2× platinum
BPI certification: 2× platinum
But instead, discographies have tended to combine the Title and Notes columns, and bolding the title to achieve the same effect while limiting the clutter (granted, not neccessarily the clutter of the markup, but come on, it's an extra 3 apostrophes). In essence, the bold just points out the most important fact in an otherwise busy table. Drewcifer (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with the shown table is that there is too much information in it. Consider this:
Released Title Chart positions Worldwide sales
UWC[7] U.S.[2] UK[3] GER[8]
October 24, 2000 Whoa, Nelly! 17 24 2 14 5 million
Remember that we are not here to show statistics. We aim for an encyclopedia, one that tells something about an album (or a discography) without burying the reader in numbers. -- Pepve (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well now we're getting into a whole nother can of worms: how much information is too much in a discography? And based on the discographies promoted to FL so far, I think you'd have alot of disagreements on your hands. But let's stick to the question at hand: to bold or not to bold? Drewcifer (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, certification-cruft is something different. Let's stick to the bolding issue. MOS:BOLD says to italicise for emphasis unless it's table headers, definition lists, and certain volume numbers in refs. Albums in discographies doesn't seem to meet those special cases. Also, to say that bolding albums because it's the most "important" bit in the section sounds an awful lot like bolding the number "1" in charts because it's the most "important" peak. Spellcast (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR, anyone? The reason so many have used bolded album titles in discographies is that it works, giving a more elegant display than any other. If what the MoS suggests is uglier, well, change the MoS. indopug (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Like I said above, it's helpful to the reader, and ultimately centers the table's focus on the important stuff. I believe an exception should be made here, because, as indopug has so eloquently pointed out above, "it works". Drewcifer (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logos in music

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos on the use of graphic logos of musicians and bands, more specifically in the respective infoboxes, but also within articles in general. Since this discussion concerns a lot of music-related articles, additional input would be welcome. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding chronology to infobox when it's not mandatory

The user AndrzejCC has been adding the chronology of the three members of the rap group 213 in the album article The Hard Way (213 album). I asked him to stop becausae it's really uncessary yet he claims he will not stop because he's not doing anything wrong, which is true, that's not vandalism. But how can we address the problem? Thanks. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cage death match. Actually, just ask for a third opinion or a WP:RFC. It's definitely not vandalism even if it's against the rules as he's clearly making good faith edits, but it seems to me like the only chronology presented should be the band itself, even if they only had one album. You might also want to ask here if they think that's an appropriate use. Torc2 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking a third opinion here because users who have it watchlisted are familiar with the music standars of Wikipedia. Tasc0 It's a zero! 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody? Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre capitalization

The guideline states "The vast majority of music genres are not proper nouns, and thus should not be capitalized." You might already guess what I'd like to know: what is the vast majority? Or better yet, what genres are part of the minority?

I'm working on a script that capitalizes genres in the musical artist infobox (the script only changes the view, not the content). I have written a routine that capitalizes the first character (each genre will be displayed on a separate row so the first character should be capitalized), but I have noticed some genres have special capitalization I need to consider. Is there a list of genres with special capitalization needs? Like New Wave and abbreviations such as R&B, IDM, NWOBHM?

I've browsed through some of the list of genre X articles but most of these lists are incomplete, and contain many genres that won't be used in infoboxes (many regional styles like Middle Eastern hip hop). I'm more interested in genres like New Wave and abbreviated genres like R&B. Please help!

Thanks! 167.202.222.228 (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any list of genres that are also proper nouns. Abbreviations and place-name derived genres are the only major categories of proper noun-genres, except for New Wave music and derivatives like No Wave and the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Record charts guideline to MUSTARD

Shouldn't Wikipedia:Record charts be added to MUSTARD since it is after all a MoS guideline related to music? - kollision (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should. I'd also recommend adding a note that reminds editors to provide sources with the chart positions they are adding. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it. - kollision (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Question about Capitalization...

I know that prepositions and conjunctions under five letters aren't capitalized in works like books or movies. However, should contractions prepositions and conjunctions not be capitalized?

  • For example, should No Life 'Til Leather be changed to No Life 'til Leather? (until is the preposition in this case, and now it's shortened to 'til which is shorter than five letters) Another example is a song on Lou Gramm's album Ready or Not, a song called "Arrow Thru Your Heart". Since the preposition "through" is now shortened to the four-letter "thru", should it be spelled "Arrow thru Your Heart"?

Thanks for your input, Xnux the Echidna 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I think both those examples are typically capitalized, but I'm not aware of a specific rule to that effect. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be capitalized due to the rule saying any preposition or conjunction under five letters isn't capitalized. I've noticed a few articles that do this No Sleep 'til Hammersmith and 18 til I Die. Why wouldn't it be otherwise? (besides the other capitalized examples without reasons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnux (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 June 2008
I guess it depends on how you interpret the rule. If 'til is just a fancy way of saying "until", then it's a five letter word, here presented in an unusual fashion. But anyway, there's no particular logic to English capitalizing rules - it's just a standardized way of doing things. It's not particularly supposed to make sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of the word "like"

I know the word "like" is used as many parts of speech, and I am unsure when to capitalize it in titles. For example, some articles capitalize it like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Just Like Heaven". On the other hand, some articles don't such as "Hot like Fire" and "No One Knows How to Love Me Quite like You Do". When should I capitalize "like", eh? -Xnux the Echidna 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)