Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RfC: Track listing sections on albums

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reviewing the discussion, the consensus is yes, MOS:MUSIC#Track listing should be updated to include a statement that album articles should have a track listing section, or alternatively, that it is typical that they do.
Note: There was a previous RfC regarding WP:ALTTRACKLISTING that came into the discussion, that relates to issues that have arisen regarding unnecessary track listings for alums in certain contexts.
Main considerations in this RfC were:
Are there any reasons an album article should NOT list tracks?
Is adding the statement unnecessary, as the guideline would be obvious?
Some (but not all) arguments for yes:
It’s useful for newer editors to see that it is suggested that track listings be included
No clear downside
Some (but not all) arguments for remove:
Violates WP:CREEP
Is obvious, and therefore unnecessary
Guidelines frequently cited in this discussion:
WP:CREEP
WP:ALTTRACKLISTING
Head count and after analysis of votes:
Yes: 6
No: 2
Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


Should it be added to MOS:MUSIC#Track listing that album articles should have a track listing section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes The guidance about song articles makes sense, but I think most readers would expect a track listing on an album article and, as every album article I've seen included the track listing, it appears to be a generally accepted standard practice. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes to albums. No to singles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A broad statement like "album articles should have a track listing" is not useful, especially without some qualification to prevent misinterpretation. Consensus during a recent discussion was to discourage the addition of multiple track listings for reissues, etc., and WP:ALTTRACKLISTING should be retained. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Ojorojo: Okay, what qualification would you propose? "Should generally"? At current, this proposal doesn't seem to conflict with the discussion you cite. For benefit of others re existing consensus mentioned at WP:ALTTRACKLISTING, please see the below discussion section; it doesn't seem that relevant given that this isn't discussing alternate track listings and appears to be in reality a disagreement with the consensus garnered at a previous RfC that was closed today. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: The previous RfC addressed track listings for singles in song articles and has no effect on track listings in album articles. I agree with some of the other comments; many things "should generally be in articles", but such statements are too broad to to useful and seem like instruction creep. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but not necessarily, as per my comments above. Oh, wait: that RfC was archived into the cornfield just three hours after it was SNOW closed, so my input isn't visible anymore. We certainly shouldn't say "may not have", but I'm not convinced we need to require it. I don't know what else to put in bold to summarize my thoughts; I don't think we should add it, but I'm not against having it in if that's the consensus. So maybe: weak oppose. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    @JohnFromPinckney: "Should" would seemingly leave room for edge cases though and discretion? It is much weaker than "must". --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes basic guidance that isn't defeated by the presence of edge cases. Chubbles (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "should" is loaded here. For example, every article should have a source, but lots don't. Therefore, I don't really see the point in this proposal, in its current form. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but why not just [in keeping with the existing language of that section] "it is typical"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes and it's unclear whether the opposition is based on "some albums shouldn't have track listings", or "this is WP:CREEP because it is obvious listings should be present". I reject both; as noted "should" allows for rare exceptions, and as a style guideline the page is supposed to document things that are obvious to experienced participants but may not be obvious to new editors. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@力: Many albums are reissued with bonus tracks, which is what has caused problems (I'm not at all against track listings for the original issue). WP:ALTTRACKLISTING is a response to editors who add complete track lastings for all the various editions (10-, 20-year, remixed, remastered, etc.; see the discussion). By only saying "albums should have track listings" ignores this very real problem and is the reason why I opposed. Adding "generally" or "typically" helps, but seems to me to be too vague to provide real guidance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No to singles. Yes to albums (all of them). - JGabbard (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably (Summoned by bot) this is outside my normal field of experience, but track listing for an album is normal basic info, but why is a rule needed? Not clear to me, but I see no harm in such guidance. Pincrete (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes (although I agree with Ojorojo's point that we should include a caveat for WP:ALTTRACKLISTING situations). Knowing an album's track listing is useful information, and I suspect that many readers who are reading album pages are interested in it. Additionally, the track listing is useful as a coherent, centralized place to mark related information such as the links to individual song pages (especially useful for albums where many songs are individually notable, such as Highway 61 Revisited). There may be edge cases where a track listing might be impossible or inappropriate, but I suspect that'd be a highly rare situation, so it's probably more useful to let WP:IAR apply than to try to cover it explicitly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

True, but why ignore consensus from a well-developed recent discussion? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I wasn't aware of the discussion at the time of starting the RfC, but having the RfC for including in MOS is the better binding way. WikiProject Music and WikiProject songs were notified of the previous discussion. The RfC here also came to a different outcome; that said "standard practice" does leave room for variance with cause, one would think. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@TheSandDoctor:RfC is closed. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Consistent diminished chord typography

The following MOS pages make various recommendations about how to denote a diminished chord:

I propose dropping the methods that produce the degree sign and standardize on the superscript lowercase letters "o" and "ø". Mixing the two makes for an inconsistent appearance, and it's not possible to write ø in a way that looks good with the degree sign. The degree sign is also smaller and harder to read.

Compare: Co C° Cø (where the degree sign is in the middle)

That would mean the following methods are dropped:

  • {{music|dimdeg}}
  • °
  • Copy-paste from the MOS
  • Insertion from the "special characters" menus found on Wikipedia editing pages for desktop browsers (above and below the wikitext edit box)
  • Operating-system-specific, numeric keyboard codes like Alt+0248 for Windows PCs

This would also significantly simplify the how-to instructions.

I would be in favor of recommending only the following methods:

  • {{music|diminished}}
  • {{music|halfdim}}

The article Diminished triad uses {{music|diminished}}, so this seems to be accepted, and it seems easy to remember.

It would still be possible to use aliases:

  • {{music|dimslash}}
  • {{music|dim}}

I don't object to mentioning these, but in the interest of keeping the MOS short, they could be omitted and interested editors could refer to the template documentation, which will always mention such parameter details.

I would recommend against using equivalent superscript methods:

  • <sup>o<sup>
  • {{sup|o}}
  • <sup>ø</sup>
  • {{sup|ø}}

Though they do produce the desired consistent typography, these are somewhat generic, and used in lots of different types of notation. It's better for spell checkers, both automatic and human, to use the {{music}} template because this indicates the semantic intention and links to the template documentation that explains the context. It also makes it easy to change the appearance of diminished chords in the future, should that become necessary - only one template would need to be changed. What do you think? -- Beland (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I would advise against using superscript after typing a character. The reason we use these templates is that it is accessible to all and no editor needs to remember an arcane set of keys to produce the character. So in that regard, I am opposed to such a change.
For the record, {{music|dim}} and {{music|diminished}} produce the same output which was likely coded at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I'm a bit confused about your preference. Were you in favor of dropping instructions like Alt+0248 and only recommending {{music}}? That's what I'm proposing, so did you mean to say you support the change? Or did I misunderstand and that's not what you want, or am I missing something? -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not in favour of manually added characters and would rather see correct implementation at the template level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Instrumentalist names in italics?

Are musical instrument adjectives (e.g., marimbist, clarinetist, or trumpeter) supposed to be in italics when introduced in the lede or etymology sections? Some pages have them in italics and some do not. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Examples?) No. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
What? I gave examples for pages that use italics. If you need pages that don't use italics, bassoon, oboe, and double bass are just a few. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This confused me at first. I thought you meant that pages were writing things as Trumpeter Miles Davis, but now I see that the example you cite above is something like the page for trumpet, which writes: A musician who plays the trumpet is called a trumpet player or trumpeter. This doesn't strike me as much of an issue. Tkbrett (✉) 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Then, alternatively, should those terms be listed in italics? I just want the musical instrument pages to bear at least some consistency between them. I know it's not a matter of utmost importance, but making Wikipedia neater can't hurt, especially for something that's easy to fix. For example, the trombone page has "a person who plays the trombone is called a trombonist or trombone player" without italics while your example for trumpet does have italics. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Right below MOS:WORDSASWORDS, I think MOS:TERM may point us towards italicizing: A technical or other jargon term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted, usually the former. Tkbrett (✉) 15:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Then should the MOS/Music make a mention of this? Why? I Ask (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:WORDSASWORDS?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would apply here, as it's not really talking about the words. It's simply stating that someone who plays an instrument is called "so-and-so", so a use–mention distinction isn't really needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
(Sorry about my earlier failure to inspect the mentioned articles.) I agree that WP:WORDSASWORDS is a stretch. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Some pages have them in italics and some do not. WP:WORDSASWORDS might be a reason why some editors choose to use italics. I was going to suggest that you find the editors who added the italic formatting and ask them but, alas, only Editor IvanScrooge98, who made this edit at Clarinet, is still around.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I suppose I understand why they would add them, the bigger question is should all of the musical article pages have them in italics when first mentioned. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
In principle, I’d say yes. Though it may depend on how the sentence is worded, I think. “A person who plays the clarinet is called a clarinetist.” vs “A clarinetist is a person who plays the clarinet.” 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 17:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the bigger question really this: is it necessary to say what the player is called? Doesn't the 'ist' suffix apply to most instruments so isn't the "People who play the ___ are called ___ists" statement somewhat superfluous? Perhaps there are instruments where that general rule does not apply (cor anglais?) so, certainly for those instruments the what-the-player-is-called statement might be necessary. But, for the general case, I'm not convinced that the what-the-player-is-called statement is at all necessary.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that such definitions are within the scope of each article. You wouldn't call a trumpet player a trumpist nor a drum set player a drumist, so making sure that each instrument article correctly defines the terms for a player makes sense to me (even if certain ones seem "common sense"). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
(Nor would you call a trap set player a trappist.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
No, [you] wouldn't call a trumpet player a trumpist but you might call a trumpet player a trumpetist. General rules don't apply everywhere at all times.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not certain trumpetist is even a real word, despite the Wiktionary entry. (Nevermind, a more experienced linguist proved me wrong.) And you're right that general rules don't apply which is why articles should have the relevant adjective mentioned. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, WP:WORDSASWORDS was the reason I put it in italics there, and contrarily to what was pointed out above, it doesn’t seem like a stretch at all, since it is really just words we are talking about. Though of course for consistency we would need to go through all analogous instances. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's not try to create a new style. No italics unless the word is being explained as an example. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I saw you took the initiative to remove the italics from the Clarinet and Marimba page, which is fine, but I think consensus needs to be made first about this matter before you make any more edits. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Consensus would be required to change our manual of style. Consensus is certainly not required to work through various articles and conform them to the manual of style. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Right now we don't seem to be in agreement about what the MOS even is (whether WP:WORDSASWORDS applies to instrumentalist terms or not). This is more about coming to an agreement about what the MOS means rather than changing it. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My question is: should musical instrument pages even have these sections? (Note that I originally posted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments, but due to a lack of input, moved it here. I feel it applies to the MOS).

Making note of important repertoire for specific instruments is definitely within the scope of an encyclopedia, but many pages just have flat-out lists. For example, take a look at many of the percussion pages (Timpani#Works, Marimba#Classical works, Glockenspiel#Famous orchestral excerpts, etc.) or many woodwind pages (Oboe#Notable classical works featuring the oboe, English horn#Repertoire, etc.). They all have large lists of supposed important literature unsupported by any citations. If certain works are so integral to the instrument, then they would be integrated into the prose. For example, Paganini's etudes for violin are worthy of a mention on its page. When I edited the Vibraphone page, I noted the first pieces that used the instrument in the history section and a succinct mention of important solos and concertos in the repertoire section; no large list anywhere. Alternatively, using different pieces as examples for an instrument's role would integrate the repertoire, too. I tried something like this on the Temple blocks page.

Popular music sections will never be anything more than a hodgepodge of editors' favorite bands that used the instrument once, even if written in prose. For example, take a look at Western concert flute#Pop, jazz, and rock and Bassoon#Popular music. Similar to my point above, only usages of great importance should be mentioned in the body of the article. For example, saying that the use of cello in orchestral rock was popularized by the Electric Light Orchestra in the "History" section would be fine, but not that Kanye West might use bassoon in an upcoming song as the bassoon page currently does.

Basically, this two-pronged argument asks: Can we straight up deprecate "Lists of repertoire" and "Use in popular music" sections in musical instrument articles? I want to make clear that stand-alone list articles like Flute repertoire or List of compositions for cello and piano are fine (when well-sourced, of course). Why? I Ask (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: If this doesn't get any input in the next few days, I shall be bold and consider that consesus is presumed. From there, I'll remove these sections from all of the musical instrument pages myself and deal with objections on an article-by-article basis. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is just as valid to assume silence means that your arguments have no merit.
I have not seen an example of what you are asking so perhaps linking to an article or two might be best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I literally linked several articles above; please take the time to read through them. And you're right that silence may mean that no one wants to argue a silly point. It doesn't change the fact that I am free to go ahead with my preferred changes until opposition arises. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the links to make them more direct. This seems to be trivia. We may be able to extend WP:COVERSONG or create a corollary for works. We clearly do not want lists of composers who created one (or more) piece for an instrument. If the work itself is notable (i.e. has an article) it could be listed, but with a bit of detail, and a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't even think the latter opinion (i.e., a generally notable work) should be included. Virtually every symphony, from Mozart to Maslanka, includes the oboe or the timpani. They're instruments several centuries old, and have been standard in classical music for about the same amount of time. A list of notable pieces that use the instrument would be too unwieldy for a page that's not solely the focus of the repertoire. I believe a piece should only be included on the instrument's page if it is notable to that instrument's development or is a referenced, famous examples of something that instrument is often employed to do (e.g., the first oboe solo or first timpani concerto; a piece requiring a certain extended techniques, such as Holst's The Planets requiring col legno.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Certainly. I don't think it lists works that include the instruments, it appears to be those that feature it, such as concerti or chamber works, but larger orchestral works were present.
The keys are 1) is the work itself notable enough to merit an article 2) does it prominently feature the instrument in question. We do want to avoid WP:COATRACKs, which is what it appears to have happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at Vibraphone#Repertoire, and tell me what you think. There are very few solos or concertos for the vibraphone, so I was forced to list works that don't have pages (with good references, of course). Before my edits, there was a large list similar to what those other pages have now. I don't even think having a Wikipedia page needs to be a requirement. Just reliable references citing that a work is among the most notable for that instrument. Furthermore, I believe unadorned lists will always lead to such fancruft.That's why I want lists to be banned, but not actual prose that discusses important literature. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
That looks like a reasonable section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Guidelines Be Established for How Credits (e.g. Songwriting) Are Listed?

I can't find any official guidelines for how credits should be listed in music articles. My main example is writing credits for songs in an album track listing but it may also apply to other situations (such as tracks or albums with multiple producers, associated artists,...). I've looked everywhere I could find. Notably, this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Guidelines have no guidance that I can see.

If no such official guidance exists, I would suggest something analogous to MOS:TVCAST that specifies that credits "should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits". This would mean listing writing credits in the order they appear on the release.

An example is the credits for the song "Mas Tequila" in the track listing for the Red Voodoo album. At the time of writing, the writing credits in the article are:

Gary Glitter, Sammy Hagar, Mike Leander

while the release has:

Written by Sammy Hagar, Gary Glitter, and Mike Leander

So, the desired writing credits in the article, if they were to match the order given on the release, would be:

Sammy Hagar, Gary Glitter, Mike Leander

Note that the writing credits on the release are followed by:

Contains replayed elements from "Rock N Roll Part II" Written by Gary Glitter/Mike Leander

There is often a reason the credits are listed in the particular order they are on the release. The above example is such a case due to the "contains replayed elements" note mentioned above. Artists like Yes go to great lengths when listing writing credits. Others releases have writing credits listed alphabetically, and sometimes they seem almost random.

This is to say that, the order writing credits appear on the release often has significance and usually has at least no less significance than a haphazard order typed by an editor. Of course, there are times when the credits as they appear on the release are not in the most-meaningful order and, in such cases, the most-meaningful order should be used (hopefully with a reference, where possible, and/or discussion on the talk page).

In summary, I propose that the preferred way to list writing credits (and maybe other similar situations) be the order they appear on the release unless there are contravening exceptions.

---

If this suggestion has merit, I would also suggest setting official guidance for handling contradictory writing credits for a single track on different authoritative releases. A common example is when writing credits are changed due to a copyright dispute in which case the proper writing credits should be the credits after the dispute was resolved. Of course, there can be historical or extenuating circumstances that should be considered but official guidance for the most common cases would be very nice to have.

Similarly, if this discussion gets this far, guidance on how to handle contradictory information on a single release, such as different ordering or even different people listed on an LP media label and back cover, or CD media and CD booklet, would be nice. In my experience, sometimes one of those sources was clearly a simplification of the other. If not, I looked for sufficient corroborating details and wouldn't make any edits if I couldn't find such details.

Wantnot (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Track Listing sections in song articles

Last year there was an RfC on Track Listing sections in song articles. The result of that discussion was a consensus against including track listings on song articles with simple A- and B-sides. Guidance stating this was added to the MOS at MOS:MUSIC § Track listing.

Artmusicmovies has recently added the track listing template to the article for "Holland, 1945". After I removed it and pointed to the MOS, the editor added it back under the justification that the MOS only said that there ought not be a separate section for a single's track listing, further arguing that it is important to have the template in cases where there are differences between subsequent releases. I think this entirely misses the point of the previous discussion, especially since the track listings being added have the same A- and B-sides, the only difference being difference time lengths for the B-side. Am I missing something here? Tkbrett (✉) 19:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and clutters the article. The two sentences preceding the track listing already provide all the information, except the durations for B-side. These could be easily added, if it's necessary to show a 48 second difference. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Names of Groups: On the use of "The/the" in the name of a group

The MOS currently reads: Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose... Similarly, for duos and individual musicians, a leading the is not capitalized mid-sentence in a nickname, pseudonym, stage name or other alias. Exceptions include articles from foreign languages, and stylized forms such as thee, tha and da...

I believe that a distinction needs to be made in the MOS between various types of usage of the "The/the".

1. Where the "The/the" indicates a group where members are from the same family or have the same name, e.g. "The Corrs", "The Carpenters". I would think that in this case, one could arguably be talking about a number of individuals (rather than the group as a whole). Thus English usage would allow either upper case (for the name of the group) or lower case (referring to several individuals). Thus the MOS guidelines are fine (in specifying editors use the "lower case referring to several individuals" approach). However, I suggest that if lowercase is used, the MOS should indicate that Wikilinks (also italics, boldface, quote marks etc) should then follow suit in regarding the "the" as not part of the title in this instance, e.g. "featuring the Corrs", not "featuring the Corrs". My personal opinion is that the MOS ought to also allow for the "The" to be treated as part of the proper noun, (i.e. uppercase, and Wikilinked), according to context, ("Their first performance billed as The Corrs..."), but I'm not too fussed about that.

2. Where the "The/the", followed by a plural noun, indicates a group where members might plausibly be a singular version thereof, as in the Beatles, the Wiggles, the Seekers. This means that it might be plausible to use the singular form e.g. "Beatle", "Seeker" as a stand-alone word for one member, with a lower case "the". Examples of common usage would be, "the Blue Wiggle"; or, "the fifth Beatle". I would think that in this case, the same guidelines as per (1.) should apply, including not Wikilinking the "the".

3. Where "The", is followed by a singular noun, (thus is merely part of the title of a group whose members cannot be a singular version thereof), e.g. "The Cure", "The Police", "The English Concert" Individual members could not be referred to as "Cures", or "Polices", thus the "The" is always used as part of a name, and cannot be understood to be a definite article which precedes a proper noun). I believe the current MOS guidelines were created to cater for cases (1.) and (2.) but haven't considered case (3.). Thus I would think that in this case, the current (July 2022) MOS needs updating, as it currently contravenes the standard English grammar practice of capitalising the initial and significant words of a proper noun. Hence a midsentence "The" is not only appropriate, but necessary to recognise an English language proper noun, and the "The" should be included in Wikilinks (e.g. The Who not The Who).

Exception: when a group name is shortened in practice, e.g. "the The Cure song" shortened to "the Cure song", in which case the "the" is not part of the name of the group, and the same policy for (1.) and (2.) should apply.


(It is interesting to note that if this were a Wikipedia version in a language with different capitalisation, such as Hebrew (no upper case letters) or Chinese (no letters), we wouldn't need to have this discussion!)Fh1 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay... I propose we make the following change:
Current wording
Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:
Similarly, for duos and individual musicians, a leading the is not capitalized mid-sentence in a nickname, pseudonym, stage name or other alias.
Proposed wording
Performers' name(s) beginning with "The"
When this is a plural term, mid-sentence this should be treated as referring to a number of individual people, and the word the should, in general, be treated as if not part of the group name (i.e. neither capitalized nor wikilinked). e.g.:
Exceptions include where context clearly implies that "The" is a necessary part of the performer's name. e.g.:
  • He attended the four Corr siblings' first performance billed as The Corrs
Where the performers' name is a singular term, "The" in any location should be treated as part of the performers' title, (i.e. capitalized and included in any wikilinks). e.g.:

Fh1 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily complicated, especially since I don’t think the current MOS leads to any cases of confusion. Tkbrett (✉) 19:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there is a problem when the performers' name is singular. The current MOS doesn't really work: it not only contravenes conventions of English grammar, but it also goes against the grain of MOS:THECAPS. (And personally, I think it looks really bad: for example, "lead guitarist the Edge", or "featuring the Who", or "a song by the Living End", or "a concert by the Cure", or "Bitter Sweet Symphony by the Verve).
I assume the editors who did MOS:THEBAND were thinking of plural group names, (e.g. the Beatles, where it does work) when they wrote it.
How about a simplified wording:
Performers' name(s) beginning with "The"
Where the name is plural, generally treat the word the as not part of group names and wikilinks. e.g.:
Exceptions include sentences which need to show that "The" is part of the performer's title. e.g.
  • He attended the four Corr siblings' first performance billed as The Corrs.
Where the name is a singular, "The" is capitalized and included in wikilinks. e.g.:
- Fh1 (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think this is a good idea. 1) It's extremely convoluted. 2) It appears to be, forgive me, completely made up — there's no convention of capitalizing the definite article based on plurals or singulars. 3) It doesn't make any sense in any dimension.
the Beatles, the Who, the White House, the Edge, the Corrs, the Eiffel Tower, the Weeknd, the United States of America... this is a consistent and sensible grammatical approach. What's the problem? Popcornfud (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Popcornfud,

I see where you're coming from. Great questions, Glad you asked.

So the problem is that proper nouns are appearing in lower case.

If you have a look at these articles where proper nouns are currently appearing with lower case (remember "The" is part of the performers' title, a proper noun): The Edge, The Who, The Cure. This goes against grammatical convention, and also goes against MOS:THECAPS. Some of these articles have Talk Page discussions about The vs the.

I'm not actually claiming there's a grammatical rule based on singular/plural. If you could hear me out...

I'm saying that (while I don't really like it personally), the current MOS insists on lower case for the title of a group. And...

For plural names we can kind of justify the MOS by saying, "Paul McCartney is a Beatle, and we have four of them, we're talking about a group of four individual Beatles, not actually using the band's title of The Beatles". So for plural names like The Eagles or The Wiggles, it can sound natural to use a lowercase "the" within a sentence.

With a singular band name, there isn't any easy way to justify contravening grammatical conventions, or going against MOS:THECAPS. Now if we read your list quickly, it looks great and normal, but when we realise that "The Who" is a proper name (it's "The Who", not "Who"), it looks very wrong. With The Who, I can't imply that I'm just talking about four singers who are each a Who, like I could with The Beatles or The Corrs.

There seem to be two camps. One wants lower case the, saying MOS says so. The other wants upper case The, saying it's common sense English grammatical convention: you use a capital for a proper noun.

So I'm trying to come up with a MOS solution to please both camps. I'm saying, "Yes, proper nouns do need a capital. But seeing as the MOS wants lower case, we can sort of claim we are talking about four Corr siblings or four Wiggle singers, and we're not technically using the band name, and the is just a definite article. We can live with that, we'll regard the as not part of the band name, so long as we're consistent by just wikilinking the "Seekers" or "Eagles" or "Easybeats" bit."

Now for bands with singular names, there is just no easy grammatical justification for lower case, if at all (and personally I think "the Who" looks unprofessional and rather silly). We can't imply we're talking about four individual "Cures" rather than using the band's title.

Do you kind of get where I'm coming from?

It only takes adding one sentence, "Where the name is a singular, "The" is capitalized and included in wikilinks." plus mentioning wikilinks. That's not all that convoluted.

With the Eiffel Tower or the White House, "The" isn't really part of the title, it's a definite article. With "The Edge" or "The Who" or "The Cure", The isn't an article, it's part of the title, a proper noun.

My first go at a proposed wording mentioned "When this is a plural term, mid-sentence this should be treated as referring to a number of individual people" to try to explain this. I tried trimming this as much as possible for my second attempt, but perhaps something similar needs to be left in for clarity.

Anyway, hope this answers the questions you asked me.

So based on your suggestions, what about this? (let's call it proposal #3, it's pretty short)

Performers' name(s) beginning with "The"
Generally, treat plural names as referring to the individual members, thus the is not part of group names and wikilinks. e.g.:
Exceptions include sentences which need to show that "The" is part of the performer's title.
Where the name is a singular, "The" is capitalized and included in wikilinks.

Could this be an improvement? If not, maybe you might suggest an alternative wording? Fh1 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The basic error you're making here is in thinking "The" is part of the proper noun - it isn't, per consensus here formed a long time ago. Popcornfud (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Specifically: With the Eiffel Tower or the White House, "The" isn't really part of the title, it's a definite article. With "The Edge" or "The Who" or "The Cure", The isn't an article, it's part of the title, a proper noun. OK - but why? Popcornfud (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
​"With 'The Edge' or 'The Who' or 'The Cure', The isn't an article, it's part of the title, a proper noun." This is not supported linguistically or in sources. A quick look at Google books shows a majority of sources do not capitalize the the and sentences like "the ear-splitting volume at which Who records were played" and "one of my favorite Edge moments is..." abound. We should adhere to MOS:THECAPS and follow the sources. —  AjaxSmack  00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your comments so far.
I'll try to respond to your questions...
[1.] Whatever the case, we still need to make adjustments concerning Wikilinks. If "the" is going to be treated as not part of the name, we should include in the MOS that "the" is not wikilinked. I think Popcornfud you also mentioned this in an essay.
e.g. the Easybeats not the Easybeats.
[2.] On whether "The" is actually part of the group name.
I'm not saying singular or plural determines if something a proper noun. Please hear me out on this.
The linguistic support for cases where "the" is part of the name is simply that if a group names itself with a name which includes "the", that makes it part of a proper noun.
Now for the vast majority of plural group names, if their advertisement, album or band website uses the word "the", mostly it is ambiguous whether it is or isn't part of the name. E.g. if an album says "The Seekers" at the top, if might either mean the group name is actually "The Seekers", or else that the album is by people who are called Seekers. (But if they specifically say the name of the group is "The ___" or change their name to it, it is clear.)
In the case of singular group names, it is generally pretty obvious whether or not "The" part of the name, because linguistically/grammatically we don't add "the" in front of a singular proper noun. Therefore, if a band's album, website etc uses "the" it indicates it's part of the group's name.
To repeat: singular and plural names don't determine whether "the" is part of a name, but singular names with "the" are cases which merely indicate unambiguously where it is part of the name.
It isn't governed by the usage of secondary sources (publishers, newspapers etc) and tertiary sources (Google hits, encyclopedias (as they have their own style manuals, which I suggest ought also need to be adjusted likewise) or us as Wikipedia editors, even if there is a 10-to-1 consensus). As there are only a few singular group names, I suggest that when their style manuals were written, nobody thought of them.
Mostly, band and band names – as we know them – are relatively new historically, so newspapers, publishing houses, encyclopedias may not have put a lot of thought into their style manuals on bands.
In short, if the group specifically says/indicates it is part of their name, then "the" is part of a proper noun. This is regardless of how sources, Google books etc use it.
I would much rather have MOSMUSIC say "When the band states 'the' is part of their name" and "When the performers state that 'the' is not part of their name", but in most cases with plural names, there is no way to tell.
[3.] It has previously mentioned that often people shorten the title by removing the "the" when referring to a song, performance, album etc, for various reasons e.g. to avoid repetition of "the" E.g. "the Who album" is a shortening of "the The Who album", but that is not saying that the band name is simply "Who". Even performers themselves sometimes shorten their title (in conversations, albums, URLs etc), but this is a shortening of a full title, and doesn't change the actual full name of the group.
[4.] For plural names, as previously noted, even should the performers state that "the" is part of the name, we can get around any ambiguity or disagreement between editorial opinions on this by saying they could still be referred to as several individual (e.g.) Beatles on stage. Hence we are treating them as a group of individuals, without claiming it is (or is not) part of the group name.
I see this gets around the dispute even in cases where it appears the group indicates "the" is part of the name e.g. see https://www.thewiggles.com/
[5.] For singular names where the groups says "the" is part of the name, we don't have the recourse to do [4.] , so we need to capitalise according to what the group says is their name. It ought not be the prerogative of us – as tertiary source editors – to determine what is or isn't part of a group's name.
[6.] Admittedly sometimes a group clearly has "the" as part of their name, but they style it lower case. (we probably even need to allow for this...)
[7.] It may be possible that MOSCAPS also needs some adjusting in these areas.
[8.] To avoid having to repeat information, it would be helpful if you read the previous comments before commenting.
-
I agree that when if the performers say that "the" isn't part of their title, or there can be grammatical or syntactical justification for the "the" not being treated as part of the title (e.g. when you can regard "the" as prefixing a number of individual "Beatle"s or "Corr" siblings or "Easybeat"s), then Wikipedia can treat "the" as not part of the title.
I also acknowledge David Howell Evans seems to go by both "The Edge" and "Edge", so could fit in this category.
However, Proposal #3 says specifically says, "Performers' name(s) beginning with 'The'", meaning cases when the performers say their title has the word "the".
Performers do often name their groups using "The" for singular group names: I encourage you to have a read of several articles themselves. Here are some quotes from band/orchestra entries themselves at the current time which indicate (or else, imply) that the members use "the" as part of their title (ignore the current varied capitalisations, as I assume that at the time, the members were talking (rather than writing) to each other, or that some articles follow current MOSMUSIC which we are discussing right now):
– The Verve: It was the band's first release under the name "The Verve", following legal difficulties with jazz label Verve Records.
– The Feeling: Their name comes from a neon sign seen by bassist Richard on a bar (Le Feeling) in Paris.
– The Ladder: The name 'The Ladder' is a reference to the film Jacob's Ladder in which 'The Ladder' is a fictional experimental drug used in the Vietnam war[...]
– The The: It was Keith Laws who suggested the name 'the The' to Matt Johnson.
– Les Arts Florissants [note: While this looks plural – and probably is, technically – it is named after an opera. Les = The]: The ensemble derives its name from the 1685 opera Les Arts florissants by Marc-Antoine Charpentier.
– The Fixx: At this point, the band added guitarist Jamie West-Oram (formerly of Phillip Rambow's band) and changed their name to The Fix.[...] A compromise was reached as the band altered the spelling of their name to The Fixx, and a deal was duly inked.
– The Orchestra (band): They initially tried to alter their name to "ELO2", and "Electric Light Orchestra", but they eventually decided to change their name to The Orchestra,
– The Who: Townshend preferred "the Hair", and Barnes liked "the Who" because it "had a pop punch". Daltrey chose "the Who" the next morning.
– The English Concert: ...which released a few recordings as 'Members of The English Concert' or using their individual names.
– The Alfonz: Later that year, they changed their name to The Alfonz.
– The Hill: It was this line-up of musicians that was called The Hill.
– The Apostolic Intervention: Marriott wanted them to change their name to The Nice, but Oldham insisted on them using the name The Apostolic Intervention, giving the name The Nice to another band instead.
– The Purple Gang (band): The band adopted the name, The Purple Gang, when they changed their image to the well-dressed, clean-cut "gangster" style in the 1960s.
– The Boy Least Likely To: After meeting at school, Owen and Hobbs began writing and recording songs as The Boy Least Likely To in the summer of 2002.
– The Dawn Parade: under the new name The Dawn Parade. The band's name came from McDonald's term for his walk back to his village on a Monday morning as the sun came up[...]
– The Cure: Smith soon renamed the remaining trio the Cure.
– Theaudience: Theaudience (styled as theaudience) were an English rock band, formed in London in 1996.
Note it doesn't say "Daltrey chose the name 'Who' the next morning" or "Smith soon renamed the remaining trio with the name, 'Cure'"
-
So the problem is that MOSMUSIC (and possibly MOSCAPS) are breaking English grammar conventions; and also need clarification on wikilinks.
So based on clarifying your comments, what do you guys think about this as proposal #4?
Performers' name(s) beginning with "The"
Generally, treat "the" before plural names as regular text, rather than part of the group's name. Do not wikilink "the". e.g.:
Exceptions include sentences which need to show that "The" is part of the group's title.
Where the name is a singular, "The" is generally capitalized and wikilinked.
Fh1 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I see two major problems with Larkin's ratings system (at least in the context of Wikipedia):

1) He does not "score" albums out of five in the style of a Rolling Stone or Record Mirror. The Encyclopedia of Popular Music states that Larkin and his team's system is "different to most 5 star ratings in that we rate according to the artist in question's work. Therefore, a 4 star album from the Beatles will have the overall edge over a 4 star album by Chicory Tip." This makes Larkin's ratings incongruent with other scores included in scores boxes on album articles, as he could conceivably hold X's 1-star album to be as accomplished as Y's 5-star album.

2) Larkin's system is inherently non-objective. By his own admission, his ratings are influenced by "review ratings of the credible music journals and critics' opinions". As well as leaning on the opinions of others, what is "credible", is of course, highly subjective.

I don't see any issue with Wikipedia continuing to use Larkin's prose, but I believe it should be written into the music Manual of Style that we avoid his album ratings. Hopefully this will foster some discussion. Thanks. 81.157.51.237 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see either as a problem, particularly since literally all music critic ranking systems are the same as #2: just opinions. Neither of these problems makes the source non-credible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree; it seems to me (if i am understanding correctly) that the first point poses a real problem for the reader in that they are required to already know the general quality of an artist's albums in order to understand the rating of a particular album. To use the examples given, i'd be able to roughly place a 4-star Beatles album in their range; i'd have no idea about Chicory Tip, of whom i've never heard, so a 4-star rating for them is useless to me by this method. I think that makes it not terribly helpful for us to use. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 04:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Robert Christgau "ranks" things as bomb emojis, frowny faces, scissors, and "E−"es. Different critics use different standards. If you feel like Colin Larkin is particularly confounding, we can just include explanatory notes. I still don't see the reason to remove them or disallow them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that Larkin admits to his own personal bias doesn't mean that any other critic/publication is immune to the same, just that they don't own up to it. I don't see that as a point against any reviewer, especially here where every rating is explicitly attributed to its source. And the same could be said for point one; Larkin's transparency doesn't necessarily mean he's the only one who does this or anything else like it. Rating systems are a weird, fickle thing, and expecting objectivity is purely antithetical to the meaning of the word "opinion". I wouldn't worry too much about it. So long as he's an establish subject-matter expert then he should be fine to have around.
And while I'm here, you've got me curious. Are there any other writers/pubs which have had this same "yes prose, no rating" restriction placed on them? I can't remember ever seeing that before, and personally I'm not sure I would personally support it in any circumstance. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Most review rating systems have inherent quirks and this is par for the course for the genre. Further, Larkin’s system as you describe above resonates as something quite similar to other critics; even if for them it is implicit
Adding special rules for Larkin doesn’t add much in my view. If a particular score needs clarification, this can be achieved through a text footnote. Perhaps better to do it ad-hoc then a formal manual of style rule Jack4576 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Multinational membership of music groups

Articles for music groups usually begin "AAA is a Japanese Jazz band", or "BBB is a Thai singing group". What happens if the band or group has performers from multiple nations or management and creative control from a different country or countries? When we say "AAA is Japanese" or "BBB is Gambian" what do we mean? Some famous groups are collaborations of performers, musicians, composers, lyricists and managers. Some performers may be on working visas, while others are long-term permanent residents. How to handle this is not explained under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Nationality_(biographies). To say a band or group has a particular nationality could mean:

1. all the principal members of the band or group, including the managing organisation have that nationality.

2. all the performing members have that nationality or partial nationality.

3. a majority of the identifiable performing members have that nationality. If it has two performing members from different countries, then the group has a duel nationality.

4. the group was formed in that country or has it's origin in that country.

5. the nationality of the company that employs the identifiable performers. I look forward to your opinion.

Which is the appropriate approach to take? My own view is that unless 1 or 2 applies, then the nationality must be clarified, even if some reliable sources are specific. For example, it could misleading the reader say AAA is a Japanese Jazz Band (based on an entertainment website) if the saxophonist is Canadian. Travelmite (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. I believe any issue like this that arises can be settled on a case-by-case basis from local consensus. Angryapathy (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and the general answer is "use sensible writing", e.g. "GGG is a death metal band based in Sweden, with members from Sweden and Norway", or whatever seems best to apply to the particular case. "MMM was pop band formed in Ireland but later based in Australia", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
There was no solution proposed, but a question. There is a solution for TV which is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVNATIONALITY, one that is unlikely to apply to music groups. Editors frequently apply single national labels to music groups, even if actually multinational. Problem articles include Alias (band), Kamelot, Kaachi, Le Sserafim, Sculptured and potentially hundreds more. Some bands have two nationalities listed, such as The Pretenders, The Band, while "British-American" Rainbow_(rock_band) is actually from four countries. "GGG is a death metal band based in Sweden, with members from Sweden and Norway", is clear but that is not an problem. What if Swedish editors insist "GGG is a Swedish death metal band" for a non-standard reason. The issue laid clear as follows: When Wikipedia begins "AAA is a Japanese Jazz band" what factual information is being communicated? Travelmite (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, I think what I said above it the correct approach, and if someone wants to edit-war with you about it, and discussion fails to come to a consensus, then open an RfC about it and get broader input. WP asserting that a band of mixed nationality "is" Japanese or "is" Swedish is clearly a form of WP:OR + WP:POV-pushing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Let's leave our opinions aside, because I am not disagreeing with your opinion. May I repeat my question very directly? According to Wikipedia's own guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Nationality_examples), when a Wikipedia article begins "AAA is a Japanese Jazz band" what factual information is being communicated by the adjective "Japanese"? Travelmite (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that the guideline does not specify this, as is clear from just reading the guideline. Like a zillion other things, this is being left to editorial discretion because a one-size-fits-all approach to such a matter isn't workable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I presume it means a band of Japanese musicians. There are already three guidelines up, so there's no "one-size-fits-all" approach. A Japanese Jazz band could be 2 Brazilians and 3 Norwegians, playing Japanese jazz. Endless argument that it's not a Brazilian-Norwegian band. It could be 4 Japanese, studying in Canada, who became popular in Chicago. The guidelines do not even state a necessity to explain the difference. What about the option of just calling it a "jazz band"? If describing a band as Japanese does not necessarily mean the band members are Japanese musicians, why not write that as a guideline so that readers are not misled and editors know what is worth considering? Travelmite (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Based upon what I've read, a guideline could be: "The nationality of a band or group of performers is stated when the performer's nationalities and group formation are all connected to a single nation, otherwise editors use their discretion to: (1) not apply national descriptors; or (2) separately describe the nationalities of the principal performers and group formation; or (3) use a dual-national descriptor (see MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES); or (4) apply a best-fitting national descriptor and later state the nationality of any principal performer who is an exception to that descriptor." Travelmite (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Multinational_bands_and_music_groups thanks Travelmite (talk)

Chord notation guidelines

The current chord notation guidelines only advise on major, minor and seventh chords. There is no information regarding chords with more than one extension (e.g. 7add9add11 chords). I believe the standard is to add these in the superscript, like this: A7(add9/add11). Does anyone know if this is the correct format? SecretNinjaDave (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extending from the current advice overleaf and looking at LilyPond's documentation, I think that's a commonly used notation and shouldn't raise any eyebrows. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it and similar Metacritic templates as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Pitch

Considering the recent topic above (eight-foot pitch notation for organ stops), there is no discussion here in the MOS about pitch, which is pretty fundamental. Consensus in the literature seems to be orbiting around scientific pitch notation, which follows the note letter with a number for the octave, usually as a subscript (e.g. middle C = C₄) but sometimes a regular number (C4) or superscript (C⁴) is used. I'm not proposing we settle on which of those to use, as long as one of them is used, just recommending it over the many (and there are many!) older systems due to its simplicity and increasingly common use. Additionally, I think we should at least mention in passing, or make an allowance for, the use of eight-foot pitch notation where appropriate too, which would be when discussing organ stops, or technical organology topics like wind instrument air columns, lengths of keyboard strings, etc. This notation is standard for describing organ stops (e.g. 2′ flute stop) and an exception has been made on MOS:FOOT to allow for this usage. — Jon (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think scientific pitch notation is most commonly written in the subscript form (C<sub>4</sub> or C{{sub|4}} -> C4). I would suggest not to use the Unicode character U+2084 ₄ SUBSCRIPT FOUR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree, I just bashed out a ₄ quickly for illustrative purposes. — Jon (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length

Hi, I've started a discussion over on WP:UNITS about the Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length, if anyone has opinions and would like to discuss. Cheers — Jon (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Righto, now that's sorted, perhaps we should discuss the use of eight-foot pitch notation (e.g. 16′ pedal stop) for organ stops and wind instruments? — Jon (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's worth discussing in the context of organs, but is not much used otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

THEBAND disambiguators

Re MOS:THEBAND, it doesn't really say much about disambiguators, e.g. "(Beatles song)" vs "(the Beatles song)" vs "(The Beatles song)". We decided some years ago to use "(Beatles song)", as in All Together Now (Beatles song), yet had a lot of pushback (all my changes were undone) 5 years ago when trying to do similarly for things like Mama Said (The Shirelles song) or I Luv U (The Ordinary Boys song) or Meanwhile (The Moody Blues song). Is there any appetite for trying to be more consistent about such things? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this very issue recently at WP:ALBUMS. It resulted in, surprise surprise, no consensus.
(My opinion? We should omit "the" here.) Popcornfud (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe a well-advertised RFC, with an actual close, would have a chance of reaching a consensus. We should explicitly propose wording to add to the MOS, perhaps a couple of options, since people are finding different interpretations in the current wording. As you can see, my opinion agrees with yours; I'm sorry I missed that discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make such a discussion, you have my vote! Popcornfud (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Dicklyon I sure dislike those long discussions that end without consensus and Wikipedia continuing to be inconsistent. Go for it! And don't let my implied pessimism hold you back.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music/Archive_9&oldid=1251509114"