Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music Standards

message: The following sections of the article do not provide any information that is specific to articles covered by MUSTARD, and they repeat guidelines and instructions that are defined elsewhere. I think they should be deleted.
# Redirects
# References
# "See also" section
The following sections are similar, though the instructions have been customized a bit for articles related to music. I don't think the customizations are significant, and I think these sections should also be deleted.
#Neutrality
# Titles and section headings
Thoughts? — John Cardinal (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  While "Neutrality" does not say anything new, it does spell out a few problems we see frequently, so perhaps it should stay.  Point #1 can go; it's very general and is covered in point #4.  Point #2 seems to contradict itself; a rewrite (or rethink) may be in order. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I deleted the first three; Redirects, References, and "See also" section. I left the other two. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redundant sections? 

message: Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion  HERE. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested regarding release dates of singles 

message: Please see here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per that conversation, I have modified the standard accordingly.  The previous standard seemed odd to say the least; why would the parenthetical be treated as a separate title?  Anyway, revisions to improve the clarity of the text are, of course, welcome.  Powers T 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another suggestion, in item 3, link to Wikipedia:Proper names either instead or in addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).riffic (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, since I also felt motivated to edit that section to wikilink song titles used as examples. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A conversation regarding capitalizations 

message: Is there any set of requirements for when an eponymous category for a musical artist can/should be started?  Based on WP:Overcategorization#Eponymous, for artist Foo, having Category:Foo albums and Category:Foo songs, Template:Foo, and Foo discography is not enough, and I have attempted at times to clear those categories for deletion, or with opposition, CFD. For bands/groups who also have the Category:Foo members, I'm more uncertain about as the navigational aid becomes more convenient, yet links for them will still be on the artist's article, so it still may be not necessary.  Some older CFDs have deleted these categories when all there is are these pages/templates/categories for the artist, but consensus may be changing.  Maybe some kind of minimal requirements can be set up.  I'd like to say anything more than the above should permit it, so having categories of image file or concert tours and a list of awards won article might do it. Would it be a good idea to come up with something to put in here or MUSTARD, then there's something to point to as reference in the future? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not clear what advantage we gain from cat:eponymously named albums/singles/etc by Foo.  The fact that The Beatles had The Beatles (aka The White Album) or that Fleetwood Mac had two albums entitled Fleetwood Mac (1968 and 1975) is just not that important unless there is confusion.  In the later case, we have a disambiguator in popular usage: Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac redirects to that earlier album.  The word eponymous is just horrible, IMO, anyway, but that's probably just me.   Sophomore is similar, though, perhaps...  --Jubilee♫clipman 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure understood correctly (or maybe I have not explained clearly).  This has to do with eponymous categories not eponymous albums (e.g. :Category:The Beatles, :Category:R.E.M., :Category:Justin Timberlake). Should there be such a category for every artist or should some kind of minimal requirements be set? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  Yes, I misunderstood you.  Perhaps those categories have their place in that they can help to bring all of the works of those bands and individuals under one roof with articles on their major biographers and other articles related to their life, influence, technique etc?  Classical composer categories sometimes follow the same pattern: :Category:Richard Wagner, :Category:Joseph Haydn.  Then again, not all composers have eponymous categories (if many at all, indeed).  Anyway, all those top level categories should probably only contain subcats, per the warning on :Category:The Beatles.  I am still considering this issue, however, so I'll get back to you.  Also, have you thought of asking at the village pump?  There will be editors there with far more experience of the ins and outs of categorisation than I (or others here) have  --Jubilee♫clipman 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That said, :Category:The very latest Simon Cowell offering might be a little presumptive...  --Jubilee♫clipman 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous categories 

message: The first thing that makes me uncomfortable is that this styleguide should be on a completely different page from the Music guideline. Nowadays, I don't think it's wise to draw a black line between genres in such a way; and there's a good deal that applies to both.
I support the audit that is underway of all music styleguides with a view to rationalisation and possible mergers. Tony (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tony.  We could do with some more input on this.  IMO, this MoS should now be in mainspace; It should either be merged into the main MoS or be separate from the MoS on some suitably named page.  The Music Project needs to be involved as do all the CM and pop/rock etc projects.  I'll round them all up soon to see what they think  --Jubilee♫clipman 18:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragmentation of styleguides 

message: My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
*Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)/Appraisal
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Appraisal
*WT:Manual of Style (music)#Appraisal of Manual of Style (music) and WP:MUSTARD (contains a summary of my thoughts and recommendations)
Thoughts welcome.  It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with.  Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual.  Thanks  --Jubilee♫clipman 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Appraisal of [[WP:Manual of Style (music)]] and MUSTARD

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC which could affect this MOS

message: Just a minor point. In the opening paragraph the article explains where the Abbreviation 'MUSTARD' comes from in the following way: "MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs)". This is inconsistent with the Manual of style on capital letters (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28capital_letters%29#Acronyms_and_initialisms), the page of which is linked directly to this one. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not so have not changed it myself but if accidental it's probably worth fixing seeing as this is manual of style page. Gul e (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Manual of Style's rules necessarily apply to the Manual of Style's pages. Rothorpe (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gul e isn't objecting to the name or its appearance in caps, just the way it's explained, in the quotation marks shown above.  He's right, but I'm not sure the manual's recommended replacement using italics is easy to deciper: "MUSTARD (music standards)".  Is that easy to understand?  It isn't to me.  So I think we'll have to stay with an exception to the rule. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore All Rules, my friends. Quinxorin (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought from an outsider, but I'd never think to look under this title for standards on music articles. The name isn't very intuitive to others. Imzadi 1979 →  04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency with Manual of Style

message: Recently this page was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD to its current title, but somehow it's 5 archives were forgotten. I have moved them along, and you will see that that now reappear in the archives box at the top. However I noted that a few other sub-pages were not moved along, namely:
#Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Appraisal
#Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/References
Should they also be moved along? – IbLeo(talk) 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Let's keep everything together, for now.  We can reassess all the subpages once we have reassessed the project page.  Thanks for the heads up  --Jubilee♫clipman 23:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I have moved the above two pages to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)/Appraisal and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)/References. – IbLeo(talk) 04:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives have been moved 

message: The name of this page obfuscates its meaning - it has nothing to do with a potent condiment. It should be, say Manual of Style (Music Standards) or some such. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, it seems ever since it got moved to the manual of style, the title isn't as descriptive anymore. riffic (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I feel that much of this should be merged to the main Music MoS, the most of the rest being Content advice rather then Style advice.  Basically, we should have two clear advice pages: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) and Wikipedia:Content Guide (music) with a few other specific advice pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts) (which will probably take in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)#Record charts), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) (which will probably take in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)#Sounds and other multimedia), etc all linked from both main advice pages.  I have never got my head round the need for MUSTARD and splitting the page out not only makes sense but will resolve the weird-name issue  --Jubilee♫clipman 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both points; it was already my understanding that it would become part of the main Music MoS as Jubilee had already proposed. I think it's just that it then meanwhile got caught up in a general rename of MoS pages that happened as a result of a separate discussion about making them all the same format. PL290 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am prepared to take care of the split/merge if/when we get clear consensus to go ahead with it. We will need to be very clear what we do with each section: most of MUSTARD probably will fit straight into the Music MoS, as is (IMO); however, some of it is too specific for the general Music MoS and some of it isn't actually Style advice but rather Content advice.  Some of these sections will probably fit into one of the other guidelines I mentioned already while other sections might even fit into WP:Notability (music)—certainly, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(MUSTARD)#Notability will—or a perhaps new Content-based music guideline, as suggested above and elsewhere.  Essentially, then we will have three main guidelines with clear purpose—Notability, Content, and Style—and several specific guidelines for the rest of the stuff.  Does that make sense?  --Jubilee♫clipman 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does to me. I already expressed my agreement that MUSTARD should be merged into the general MOS when you first brought this up over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Appraisal of Manual of Style (music) and WP:MUSTARD and I maintain this standpoint. I suggest that we discuss what should be done with each section separately; that breaks the work nicely down into smaller pieces that can be done more or less independently. We certainly need someone to drive the whole thing and I wholeheartedly support your candidature. – IbLeo(talk) 05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything IbLeo said. Obviously Jubilee will have other demands on his time too (both on and off WP), and I'm sure no one would want to put any pressure on him about this particular one; equally, if Jubilee feels anything is holding him up that others can do something about, we would want to know that. Regarding "if/when we get clear consensus to go ahead with it", what needs to happen next to achieve that consensus? I'm not aware of any opposition, and the 7-week period since Jubilee posted his audit report above seems more than ample time for any issues to arise if they were going to. PL290 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Following on from the above discussions, I will shortly start splitting this page out into the other Music MoS Guides, the Music Notability Guide and a new Music Content Guide.  I suggest that rather than losing MUSTARD altogether we mark it as Historical.  After all, it has been a major force in WP for a long time.
If any one has objections to this process, please state them now!  So far, most comments have been favourable towards a split but there may be factors that have been overlooked.
For those new to this discussion, the rationale for splitting MUSTARD out is rather complex.  First, the page was audited a while back by me during the general audit of the MoS.  During my audit, I found several issues not least of which was that the page is either redundant to other Guidelines or actually contradicts other Guidelines.  Second, the page was recently moved over from WikiProject space to Wikipedia space and renamed according to the new standards decided upon at WT:MOS; the name MUSTARD now stands in relief against the other MoS names (e.g. MOS (music), MOS (biographies) etc) and is now less useful than it was.  Third, the page itself is something of an artefact of the times when the guidelines were all being drawn up for the first time and we now need to rationalise the guidance as much as possible.
Each section needs to be discussed in turn as each will need to be first compared against advice found in other Guidelines (to check they are not contradicting each other etc) and second moved (or copied) into a specific guideline.  Not all sections will sit happily in the same guideline, hence multiple destinations are proposed; there many be other destinations.  Some sections may even be abandoned altogether.
I hope this summary explains what is proposed.  If I have left anything out, please don't hesitate to add it below!  Thanks all  --Jubilee♫clipman 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree wholeheartedly!  Occam's Razor (I keep quoting that and find it damn useful...)  Let's concentrate on one section at a time then.  First, though, do we save MUSTARD it self or just move everything out and delete the page when finished?  I would not favour the latter course since not only is MUSTARD a venerable guideline that has been quoted many times in the past (and therefore is quoted in archives) but also the Page History is extremely important.  I would therefore strongly recommend marking MUSTARD as Historical rather than deleting it--Jubilee♫clipman 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *As you say, the content vs. style distinction does have grey areas and overlaps, but having said that, there are usually certain things that are clearly best categorized as one or the other; I think you've identified some already. But it's not as if a once-and-for-all decision is needed, either now at any time. Case by case, as we go, improvements as and when we identify them: business as usual! On the historical/deletion question, I suggest the goal should be to (a) preserve the possibility of looking at MUSTARD history, and (b) prevent the possibility of old info hanging around looking current. So I assume the thing to do is simply remove pieces as they find a new home elsewhere, ending up with a MUSTARD page that is actually empty but for some notice about it being historical. Its history will then still be there to look at if and when required. PL290 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I second that strategy. By moving to elsewhere section by section we know exactly what remains to be done at any point in time. I think it would be the best way to progress, as the whole thing is probably going to take a while. – IbLeo(talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *One thing: marking a blank page as Historical is a little odd!  I would favour using my userspace copy of this page (after I have copied the present version of MUSTARD over there) to keep us right (deleting the sections from that page) and simply mark the actual Guideline as Historical immediately after we have finished our task.  Template:Historical is pretty clear that the page thus marked is deprecated, IMO  --Jubilee♫clipman 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point, and a good compromise. Fine with me. – IbLeo(talk) 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fine by me too. On a side note, I think in this case it would be helpful to also place links to the replacement pages beneath {{tl|Historical}. PL290 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good idea.  I see no objections yet, BTW, and I have posted links to this discussion in tons of places.  Looks like we have the all clear to start this tomorrow or Sunday  --Jubilee♫clipman 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Some parts of this are already in other guidelines. Compare the advice on Capitalisation with that found in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles, for example.  Do we need this advice twice in two different guidelines?  The advice on each page has actually drifted apart subtly, if you look carefully.  Also, do we need the advice on Spoiler Warnings?  These are dealt with under the advice found in WP:SW, now, which acomes close to actually contradicting the advice here!  If fact, AFAICT, half the advice (at least) found on this page is found in other Guidelines and is either redundant or contradictory.  We need to look at each section against other Guidelines—after identifying which they are, though I have already done that in most cases in my appraisal: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)/Appraisal for my initial thoughts on each section  --Jubilee♫clipman 21:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Those seem like sensible points, so I'm happy to support removing the duplicated info. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good.  I'll leave this for a while longer to see if any one else from WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and the various WikiProjects and other places that I have left notes about this has any objections or advice.  The weekend seems like a good time to get going  --Jubilee♫clipman 22:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Split 

message: I have merged as much as I think necessary into MOS:MUSIC; I have listed the sections not merged in at the top of this talkpage and explained why I left them out in my posts above.  If I have left anything unresolved or if any of the above sections should indeed be merged in, please do not hesitate to contact me or leave a post here.  Thanks to everyone who has helped, encouraged and advised me through this long process  --Jubilee♫clipman 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge complete 

message: I disagree with marking the whole of the Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical.
Moving sections to the MoS and deleting them from MUSTARD to avoid duplication is fine, but IMO sections not moved should be left in MUSTARD and not marked as historical. They can be left here for further editing and improvement as necessary. MUSTARD has fulfilled a useful purpose as an all-music project brain-storming forum, so there is no reason to close it down. --Kleinzach 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be done: it's just that all of the advice that has not been merged in is either redundant or contradicts the other Guidelines.  None of it is salvageable as far as I can tell.  I can't really see any need for improving Notability when we have WP:MUSIC or Record charts when we have WP:Record charts.  Indeed, Spoiler warnings goes against WP:Spoiler and Internal links goes against WP:REDLINK and have done so for years.  I don't see how they help anyone much, these days.  However, if you can improve the page and make it useful again that would be great!  It would have to be an all-Wikipedia project brainstorming forum, though, now that it is no longer in WikiProject space...  Thanks for your thoughts, Kleinzach  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

text: OK.  I have replaced the sections moved to MOS:MUSIC with links to that guideline and have also replaced Notability with a link to WP:MUSIC and Record Charts with a link to WP:Record charts.  I still don't see how this page is particularly useful, though: everything that is left is n other guidelines as I pointed out above and much of it actually goes against some of those other guidelines.  Also, brainstorming takes place in WikiProject space and specific concerns about specific MoSes take plce on their talk pages. Since this page is redundant, we could almost MfD it...  I won't but I still vote that we mark it as historical as was agreed above by several editors  --Jubilee♫clipman 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, I do wish that you had taken part in the discussions: we could have talked about this before I merged...  --Jubilee♫clipman 11:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: We can't just leave it like this. Page should become historical unless those conflicts and redundancies are resolved and any useful content remains. PL290 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreeing with marking Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical 

message: Following Kleinzach's suggestion that the page be unmarked as Historical and made available for brainstorming, I have attempted to clarify a few sections and make them conform to Policies and the rest of the MoS.  I feel it is a futile exercise as I still can't make head nor tail of External Links and other sections just seem to repeat what the other Guidelines and Policies say.  Could we just send this back over to WikiProject space and leave it to them to decide how best to deal with it?  Is it even a Manual of Style, in fact,  given that its sole purpose, now, is to act as a brainstorming tool?  It also still has an unhelful name.  Another possibility is to rename it as Wikipedia:Music standards and mark it as an essay.  Thoughts?  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we do with this page now? 

message: This should be obvious, but all sections that have been moved to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) should be removed from MUSTARD and replaced with links to their new location. (I've done one of these already.) PL290 should remove the 'historical' tag to facilitate this work, rather than obstruct it. --Kleinzach 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What should be obvious looking at the reams of discussion above, on the talkpage of MOSMUSIC and in the archives of WT:MOS, is that MUSTARD is redundant, lacks any clear purpose, should be marked as historical and forgotten about.  I did wonder for a brief moment whether there might be some usefulness if it were to be used as a brainstorming tool but having read all of the discussion, my appraisals and the actual page itself again I see that I was wrong.  PL290 did the right thing therefore and has consensus behind him.  If you had taken part in discussions from the start (almost three months ago), you would have known all of this  --Jubilee♫clipman 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summary: "please read the reams of discussion you failed to take part in Kleinzach'. Excuse me. I don't participate in abusive exchanges. --Kleinzach 11:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for that.  See your talkpage  --Jubilee♫clipman 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated MoS/MUSTARD sections should be removed