Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/MUSTARD/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Loss of content? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Good ones, I adapted them onto the page. Tuf-Kat 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More is needed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Categorization

message: 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)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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)
thread_title: Discography

message: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Will do. Thanks! Folajimi 03:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability requirement for article requests. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cats 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The "many" tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting - Quotes and capitalization 

message: /Discography #2 is now coming into play in a Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography|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)
thread_title:  Fair use of images in discographies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, something's wrong with the Led Zeppelin IV--the info box is screwed up or something. Nareek 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Trivia? Really? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Year in Music links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Albums arent' supposed to be categorized by genre or record label, the artist is. The album itself is not rock, the band is a rock band. Violask81976 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about multi-genre artists? -- TimNelson 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: such as..? Case-to-case, i guess. *shrug* Violask81976 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steeleye Span?  I guess most artists have a primary genre, though, and most albums probably share the same primary genre as the associated artist, even if there are songs present from another genre.  -- TimNelson 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album categories

message: Why is this called Mustard? heqs 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To reask the above question, does anybody know why? --T-rex 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a guess, MUSic STAndaRDs.... Paulbrock 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustard? 

message: I am not involved with the project, but I thought I should mention here a pattern I observed: [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, the special cleanup tag never took off, so I'll remove any reference to it. Tuf-Kat 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mass removal of Mustard tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images should be unobtrusive?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bootlegs 

message: 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)
replies: text: See WikiProject Albums. Jogers (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track Listings? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation among albums 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suggest either The Who or The Cure. In The Cure, "the" is definitely always capitalized. WesleyDodds 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "the Beatles" 

message: "a rights holder-approved lyrics site; "
Found in the External links list, list 1 part 6 section 3
I run a lyric site dedicated to The Bled lyrics. How can i make it so I can put it dow nas an externa link? Al lthe lyrics are 100% correct, i swear. Violask81976 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyric Site 

message: I've written a document at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Definitions, which slightly conflicts with MUSTARD usage.  If no-one disagrees, I'll modify MUSTARD in line with the usages outlined there.  
-- TimNelson 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World vs. Folk vs. Traditional vs. Roots 

message: This guideline, as well as :WP:ALBUMS suggest to apply standard English capitalization to band names, directing the reader to :Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) for further reading. Shouldn't the names of solo artists be subjected to the same standards, given Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names and in order to provide an equal treatment for artists who work in a group/band and those who work alone? - Cyrus XIII 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the capitalization rules referred to in WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization and WP:ALBUMS#Capitalization should apply to solo artist names which are not personal names, leaving solo artist names which are personal names to be handled by Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names. In practice the two standards will yield identical results for most solo artist names (which might be what you are implying), but that is no reason to conflate them in my opinion. (For comparison, standard rules in many other languages is to capitalize most words in one but not the other.) I'd be fine with changing "band names" to "band names and non-personal solo artist names". --PEJL 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: As was pointed out at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard#Film_scores, many soundtracks are getting their own article. Is this in line with project guidelines, and if so, to which article should we link from the composer's page - the soundtrack or the film itself? Λυδαcιτγ 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up here, Audacity... So... any suggestions? — н¡ρρi iρρ¡ 12:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtracks 

message: I'd like to address an issue, maybe people here could help me out. I've been discussing on Template talk:Infobox musical artist for while. The guy I'm discussing with wants a delimiter/lay-out standard for the genre part of the  template, he likes to use commas instead of . Nothing wrong with that.. But in the middle of the discussion he implemented his debated idea and now, editors are changing infoboxes. In some cases infoboxes look really messed up (like this one (looks even more messed up in Firefox then IE)), leading to needless edits and reverts.
Maybe, if more people are involved, we could achieve a satisfactory consensus. Thank you. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that that is an accurate representation of the events. A discussion about standardizing the formatting of genres has occurred, in which numerous arguments in favor of a compromise solution were presented, and no arguments against it. After no further arguments were raised for a few days, I implemented the compromise solution. A technical glitch was discovered, and the change was reverted. An adjusted compromise solution has been presented to work around the technical glitch. I too welcome more editors contributing to this discussion, especially if they have actual arguments for their positions. --PEJL 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest further comments on this topic be made at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters. --PEJL 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres in Musical Artist Infobox 

message: WP:MUSTARD#Formatting says: "The names of tours are not formatted beyond ordinary capitalization." Many tours are named after albums. It is unclear whether this is meant to apply to such tour names as well. It seems to me that it would be more obvious to refer to tours as "ALBUM NAME tour" rather than "ALBUM NAME tour" since we italicize ALBUM NAME everywhere else. (In my experience doing so is also quite common.) Either way, this needs to be clarified. --PEJL 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "The names of tours are capitalized (with the possible album name portion in italics)." --PEJL 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of tours