Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 3

Abbreviation of "opus"
We seem to have a wide variety of ways of writing an opus number after a work:
 * Op.28
 * Op. 28 (my very strong preference)
 * op.28
 * op. 28 (in danger of becoming the most commonly seen version, a bad thing, imo)
 * opus 28
 * Opus 28.

Some articles use one style consistently, but others use a hopeless mish-mash of styles. I've seen no discussion about the preferred WP style, so maybe we ought to establish a position on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Op. 28 is the way I use myself, and the way that not only I've seen the most by far, but it really does look the best. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, Melodia. But as for "op. ", here are just a few examples where it appears, and imo makes WP seem a less than professional outfit:
 * Arnold Schoenberg
 * Suite, op. 16 (Saint-Saëns)
 * Friedrich Wührer
 * Egon Wellesz
 * Dances at a Gathering
 * List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra
 * List of compositions for piano and orchestra
 * List of compositions for violin and orchestra
 * List of compositions by Camille Saint-Saëns
 * List of compositions by Mauro Giuliani
 * List of compositions by César Cui
 * List of compositions by Max Reger.


 * Another version I see is the absence of a comma after the name of a work (e.g. Symphony No. 7 in G sharp minor op. 19 (opus 19, Op. 19, whatever). The comma is surely always required. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your preference. The lack of a space after an abbreviation that ends with a period (full stop) should be regarded as a mistake, not a usage variation. Many Wikipedians neglect to use a space between "p." or "pp." and the page number(s). This error does not occur in professionally published works. While capitalizing "Op." and "Opp." is the most common usage in the outside world, and therefore preferable in Wikipedia, the uncapitalized version is occasionally seen; the Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th ed., uses the lower case form. Finell (Talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise that Wikipedia writes its own rules, but I would think that, in doing so, it would also follow the consensus of the professionals in the field. My position/opinion is that,
 * As in the works given in the above list, *op.* should be lower case after the comma following the title of the composition, upper case only at beginning of a sentence.
 * Ex: Saint-Saëns' Romance in D major, op. 51
 * The word *opus* is simply a noun, so why should it be capitalised after a comma?
 * At the beginning of a sentence, it must be capitalised,
 * Ex: Opus 51 by Saint-Saëns is a Romance
 * Also, if you use the word *opus* to designate the work of a musician, not mentioning its title or type of composition:
 * Ex: Saint-Saëns Opus 51 is a great composition.
 * Musically yours, Frania W. (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The word *opus* is simply a noun, so why should it be capitalised after a comma? 
 * For the same reason that we don't write Symphony no. 2, but Symphony No. 2. "No." in that context is part of the title of the work.  The same rationale applies to "Op.". It is essentially part of the title of the work, hence Symphony No. 2, Op. 37.  I agree we should guided, at least to some extent, by professionals in the real world. But the only external cite you've shown me so far sheds no light on this issue in relation to English language texts, as I've discussed on your talk page.  What other languages do has no bearing here. Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the English Wikipedia, we should be guided by English usage—although English rules of capitalization on one side of the Pond are different than the other. In my opinion, "Op." is more attractive typographically than the lower case version. If there is a clear majority usage in professionally published English language writing on music, we should go with that. I don't have much of a music library at home. Could others with easy access to music reference books and journals do a survey of the usage they find? Finell (Talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Music Online (formerly New Grove) uses "op.123", lowercase and no space between the period and the number. Most American professional orchestra program notes (I checked NY, Chicago, Cleveland, LA, Boston) use either "Op. 123" or "Opus 123". Cleveland, Boston, and New York use "K.123" without the space. Most use "E-flat" with the hyphen and lowercase "flat" (I couldn't find an example for Cleveland). Some omit "major". Some capitalize "Major" and "Minor", some don't.


 * New York: Horn Concerto No. 2 in E-flat major, K.417; Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor, Op. 37
 * Boston: Symphony No. 19 in E-flat, K.132; Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Opus 74, "Pathétique"
 * Cleveland: Symphony No. 7 in D minor, Opus 70; Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K.183;
 * LA is inconsistent, so there's not much point including examples
 * Oxford Online (note this is within the prose): "And in the Sonata in C minor op.111, after the first movement ..." (also note that Oxford uses lowercase "no.": "Cello Sonata in D op.102 no.2")

I don't feel like doing more research, but if you're really passionate about this you could check out what professionals are doing. Many styles are acceptable – professionalism comes through consistency.

– flamurai (t) 04:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Style guideline needed for opus numbers
Manual of Style (music)‎ should have a style guideline for consistent usage opus numbers in articles on music. I agree with JackofOz and ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ that the abbreviations "Op." and "Opp.", for the singular and plural, should be used consistently, with a space between the abbreviation and the opus number(s). When the opus number follows a work's title, preceding and trailing commas should surround the opus number. The first use in an article should be linked as follows: Op.. Let's see if we can reach a consensus here, and then add this guideline to the project page. Finell (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the relative lack of apparent interest here, I've raised a "bigger picture" issue @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. --  JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Schubert's D numbers
I'd say there are 2 valid ways of using a D number:
 * Symphony No. 31, D. 1234 (full stop and space)
 * Symphony No. 31, D1234 (no punctuation at all; cf. B6 (Dvorak), etc)

But not: Symphony No. 31, D.1234 (full stop but no space)

Comments, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first form is the one most commonly used in the real world, and for that reason is preferred. It is also analogous to the common usage of "K." The lack of space after period (full stop) is simply a mistake (see above). Please feel free to add a space after every "D." in Franz Schubert! Finell (Talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Symphony No. 5 in B-flat major, D.485" is used in Cleveland Orchestra program notes. – flamurai (t) 04:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, for them. You could find many real-life examples of the various styles.  My concern is to have a consistent style in Wikipedia, and I think the two I suggest are the most common styles.  The first version (e.g. D. 976) also accords with our general style guidelines on spaces after abbreviations, and is the one I strongly prefer.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen D quite often, myself -- Arkivmusic and this works list site for two. Yeah the letter D is an abbreviation but it's also in itself an identifier which means it's perfectly fine to use without a period. There's really no consistent way (same with any other composer that has a non-Op. catalog system), and unlike with opus numbers it's not a standard for more than one list... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My only point is that it's not "simply a mistake". – flamurai (t) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Cleveland Orchestra program notes, it's a conscious idiosyncrasy. On Wikipedia, it is simply a mistake. You often see citations in Wikipedia (but not sanctioned by any style manual) where there is no space between "p." and the page number. This is an analogous mistake. And it looks awful typographically. Finell (Talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any clear WP guidelines about it, it's probably not possible to say it's a mistake. But otherwise I support what you say. That's why I'm interested in developing a formal position on it, so that we're all playing by the same rules and we can get rid of the plethora of variants, which we sometimes see all appearing within the same article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, the whole issues kinda stems from the whole arbitrary placing of "D" in front of the number in the first place. Deutsch didn't use anything except raw numbers (and I imagine this is true with others such as Serle and Koechel). So it's not as if there really is one correct way of doing it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. But a professional outfit like Wikipedia should aim for high standards, and consistency of style is a very worthwhile aim.  This issue is exactly what a style manual is for.  Most other organisations make decisions about how they want D numbers, K numbers, opus numbers etc etc to appear in their literature, and we should do the same.  That's all.  Rather than appearing to be arguing against having any consistent style, I'd rather see your ideas as to how you think it ought to appear. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one prefer what I said above, eg. D 233 (though for Liszt for some reason S233 somehow looks better). Another example is Appelby's catalog of Villa-Lobos (which doesn't have much proliforation, but it's in my book) -- he actually uses a letter, and has it in the format W002, W034, W456, with the leading zeros. I assume the W is for 'work'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And to put yet ANOTHER spin on it, Hyperion in their complete song edition (and I assume in general) uses the D123 form, which they also do for Liszt (they have a complete piano edition for him). So I'd say that "in the real world" is hardly true considering all I've seen. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet again you're citing examples to show how it varies in the real world. I realise that.  That's abundantly clear.  The point of this topic is to come to a consensus about how it should appear in Wikipedia.  I've stated my preference, but I could live with almost any version, as long as that version is the one that's always used.  How about we set up a poll, to gauge support for and against each version?  People can add their views, and over time we can see whether any one version gains more support than any other.  It may not produce a clear winner, but it might at least show a version that we should outlaw.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't have a specific rule for any one catalog. That just makes things confusing. The rules should be more general. I think the following is consistent and easy to follow:
 * Single letter - cap, period, space, number
 * D. 123
 * K. 123
 * Abbreviated word - initial cap, period, space, number
 * Op. 123
 * Hob. I:23
 * Sz. 123
 * Multiple letter initialism - all capitals, space, number (no periods)
 * BWV 123
 * BB 123
 * Special case
 * WoO
 * Of course if there are strong exceptions, those should use the widely accepted style.
 * – flamurai (t) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered this discussion. Grove uses the unpunctuated D123/K123 style. Judith Butcher (the Brit equivalent of the Chicago Manual of Style) recommends the same. That seems to be the default. Does anyone have Chicago? -- Klein zach  09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll to gauge support for format of D numbers
Please enter your user name. ✅ means this is a format you could support, even if it's not your No. 1 favourite. ❌ means this is a format you do NOT support at all. Add any brief comments you wish to make. (Longer comments and argumentation should appear in the main discussion thread) Then adjust the totals for each column.

Proposal regarding stringed instrument tunings
See Stringed instrument tunings and Wikipedia talk:Stringed instrument tunings. This could either remain a separate page, and become a specialised MOS guideline linked to this one, or it could be merged into this one.

My feeling is that it's long enough to stand on its own and can't be shortened without losing important content. But to merge it to a new section of the current guideline all that's really necessary is to increase the level of each section heading by one, and create a new level 2 heading.

But first, do others agree that there's a need for something like this, and if so, is this ready, or is more work required, and in what area? Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had one positive comment, saying it's ready to go. If we have consensus on this, what I'll do is to do is add a section to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)] based on the nutshell summary and linking to the new guideline, replace the proposal template by a style-guideline|WP:MOSTUNINGS|MOS:TUNINGS template, and set up the shortcuts.

I've moved it to a more suitable name, I hope that won't be an issues.

The new section should IMO read as follows (no italics except for the hatnote):

Stringed instrument tunings


 * For details and rationale, see Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings)

''In articles on stringed instruments and related topics, information on the tuning of the strings is very often included. The formatting of this information raises some surprisingly tricky issues, as the conventions adopted elsewhere are not terribly consistent.''

When describing the tuning of a stringed instrument:


 * Always list the closest (normally bass) string first.
 * Always number the furthest (normally treble) string as "one".
 * In other matters, be consistent within the article.

Further comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a string player so I am not qualified to comment on the specifics. If there is a need for it and a consensus develops then go ahead and proceed. I would suggest bringing the topic up on any articles that conflict with the proposed guidelines.--dbolton (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. AFAIK the conflicts will be minor... but I'll have another, closer look at that.


 * It's more a matter of documenting what we already eventually end up doing anyway article by article, and explaining why we do end up with this seemingly inconsistent practice. In this way I hope both to reduce the amount of reinventing of the wheel that goes on, and also be a bit proactive because some day, some well-meaning soul is going to decide to clean it all up by bringing it in to line with one of the proposed new conventions (see the external links).


 * But yes, I shouldn't assume that there are no conflicts just because I haven't noticed any while researching the reentrant tuning article. I'll do some more searches, this time intentionally looking for lack of standardisation, rather than before when I was trying to figure out what our normal practice was.


 * That is to say, Before I was looking for the pattern rather than the exceptions. Now of course it's time to find as many of the exceptions as possible. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Italian music terms
Is it really the case that "Most Italian music terms are well-known enough to be considered part of the English language"?

Doesn't that depend on the musical context of the reader? Someone who has received formal classical training might well have a good knowledge of the italian terms, but many musicians come from other backgrounds, and don't have that knowledge. In any case, this is an encyclopedia, and we should (within reason) assume that readers don't have deep technical knowledge.

I'd like to propose that we reverse this guideline to advise that Italian terms should be explained where they are used. I see there is already a Wikipedia article named Italian musical terms used in English that explains many of the terms, and a hyperlink to that article will suffice in most cases.

Any comments? Red van man (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If a technical term is unfamiliar all we have to do is click for an explanation. Let's take Bel canto as an example. About 300 odd articles link to this page. Do we want a little essay on bel canto on each of these pages? I don't think that's necessary. -- Klein zach  05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "Red van man" is just asking for the terms to be linked, no? Don't we already do that?  I myself have probably added at least a thousand links to Tempo.  Red, what terms are you talking about?  It could be that we've simply just missed it.  Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am suggesting that the terms be linked, and I agree that in most cases we already do that. My concern was that the guidelines stated (until I changed them recently): "Most Italian music terms are well-known enough to be considered part of the English language. Commonly used terms should not be italicized". There was nothing about providing links, and I felt some editors might overlook the need to do so. My intention was to strengthen the advice in that direction, and I hope I've done so. Feel free to make improvements. Red van man (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1st draft

 * See Citing sources and Verifiability.
 * Information regarding music may need to be cited as with all information on Wikipedia. Sources should be cited especially when adding material that is already challenged or that is likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding content to biographies, and when checking content added by others.


 * Basic information pertaining to notated published compositions may refer to the score and must cite the score, except when challenged, unclear, or open to interpretation, in which case the various interpretations should be cited to reliable sources.
 * No information pertaining to a piece may be left to an editor or editors' ears, and while the information accompanying a recording (including liner notes) may and should be cited, it is not reasonable that editors ask or insist that information be verified aurally, or by listening to a recording or live performance. Program notes accompanying a live performance may be acceptable sources of information if they are from a reliable source.

I propose adding the above in a separate section to the current page. It is based on, as it says, "Wikipedia:Citing sources" and "Verifiability", as well as current practice and consensus among music editors. Hyacinth (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I object for a simple reason: the existence of this policy. It shows that Wikipedia can be reasonable after all and does not need citing of what can be obviously seen. Same should go for what can be obviously heard. Obviously, the editor must consider him or herself as having a good ear, just like a visually impaired editor cannot rely on his or her sight. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, please note that I based my draft above on your pet policy, WP:FILMPLOT. I thought you would have noticed and appreciated this.
 * The "policy" you refer to is a guideline, which only applies to the Film WikiProject, as is of little to no relevance here.
 * However, can you give me an example of anything which may "obviously be heard" and would not be likely to be challenged and would not be open to interpretation? Hyacinth (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Star Spangled Banner opens with a major arpeggio. More examples? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant general examples relevant to the guideline, as in WP:FILMPLOT. Note that your idea of "common" and "obvious" knowledge includes falsehoods such as that chocolate is sweet. Hyacinth (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to add that section, since it applies to ALL pages in the encylopedia anyway. It's redundant. And as the IP says, you don't have to cite every little thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not cover all of Wikipedia, as witnessed by the objections by 87.69.130.159 that this is controversial. However, We could cut the first paragraph to a sentence simply pointing people to WP:CITE.
 * Why do other WikiProjects have citation guidelines? If had have read all of the above you will notice the coverage of issues relating especially to music. What needs to be cited regarding music? Hyacinth (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You "conveniently" missed the other editor's following sentence: "as the IP says, you don't have to cite every little thing." As for my chocolate example – it was just an example in a discussion. Besides, if you check out the article on chocolate, the only variation of chocolate that corresponds with your description is specifically called "non-sweetened chocolate"... I wonder why.
 * By the way, the Star Spangled Banner example perfectly fits your criteria of anything which may "obviously be heard" and would not be likely to be challenged and would not be open to interpretation. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd draft

 * See Citing sources and Verifiability.


 * Basic information pertaining to notated published compositions may refer to the score and must cite the score, except when challenged, unclear, or open to interpretation, in which case the various interpretations should be cited to reliable sources.
 * No information pertaining to a piece may be left to an editor or editors' ears, and while the information accompanying a recording (including liner notes) may and should be cited, it is not reasonable that editors ask or insist that information be verified aurally, or by listening to a recording or live performance. Program notes accompanying a live performance may be acceptable sources of information if they are from a reliable source.

Per objections above. Hyacinth (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem I've been having with it is the absolute ban on using your ears, however obvious the result may be. If you see something on TV that looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck, no one has to prove it's not a vocally mutated rabbit in disguise. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "main problem" seems extreme given it is against something that doesn't exist in the text. The text allows the verification of material by listening. A such, this policy is very much like your favorite policy. Don't oppose it just because it's something I'm proposing. Hyacinth (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, haven't you figured by now that I have nothing against you? On the contrary, I applaud your efforts on Wikipedia and think a part of your contributions is very much valid. However, when you blatantly ignore crucial aspects such as voicing I feel I must correct this, wouldn't you? This is something I know quite well and thus am 100% confident in regards to it.
 * As for your claim that it "doesn't exist in the text", I was referring to the following quote: "No information pertaining to a piece may be left to an editor or editors' ears." 87.69.130.159 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you rewrite that sentence and paragraph? Hyacinth (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd draft

 * See also Verifiability.


 * Basic information pertaining to notated published compositions, such as key signature or length, should refer to and cite the score, except when challenged, unclear, or open to interpretation, in which case the various interpretations should be cited to reliable sources.
 * Only basic information pertaining to a piece, such as track length or stereo placement, may be left to an editor or editors' ears, except when challenged, unclear, or open to interpretation.
 * Information accompanying a recording or live performance, including liner and program notes, may and should be cited if they are from a reliable source.

Per objections above. Hyacinth (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Key signature? This seems too extreme for me. For example, suppose I'm writing a paragraph about the first fugue of the Well-Tempered Clavier (which I, incidentally, am):
 * "Fugue in C major: The four-voice fugue is in 4/4 time; it relies heavily on stretto, probably inspired by J.C.F. Fischer's first fugue of Ariadne musica. Some aspects of both the prelude and the fugue are programmatic: the prelude ends with the lowest note possible on a five-octave harpsichord of Bach's era, whereas the cadential flourish at the end of the fugue ends on the highest possible note; and there are 24 entries of the subject in the fugue, just as there are 24 pieces in Book 1."
 * This paragraph obviously has some statements that need inline citations - Fischer's influence, the lowest/highest note aspect, and the 24 entries corresponding to the 24 pieces of the volume. That's three inline citations, all very justified, because this stuff isn't readily apparent from the score. But are you suggesting that "C major", "4/4 time", "four-voice", and "24 entries" all need inline citations as well? Seven inline citations for a small paragraph, four of which are for such simple statements? (Also, which edition of the score should one cite and how? Or do you just suggest adding a "See the score, mm. such and such" line?) It seems completely redundant, really. In the vast majority of cases, key signatures and time signatures aren't "material likely to be challenged", to quote WP:V. Does the statement "WTC Book 1 has 24 prelude and fugue pairs" need a citation, too? What about "The Well-Tempered Clavier is a collection of pieces by JS Bach"?
 * Perhaps the situation is different in articles about rock music, pop music, etc., but I believe this guideline wouldn't really work for classical music articles. We'd end up having hundreds of references in every article, confusing the readers with repeated pleas to "see the score."&mdash;not to mention that the need to insert nearly identical inline citations after literally every sentence doesn't make writing articles easier. --Jashiin (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jashiin. You DON'T need a citation to say that a piece is in 4/4 if the score clearly marks it that way. You especially don't need to cite the key IF IT'S IN THE NAME OF THE PIECE IN THE FIRST PLACE. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Before we go chasing after imaginary monsters we should pay attention to citation style. Four of the seven(!) inline citations imagined required for your small paragraph, due to sentence structure, are whittled down to two: one at the end of the sentence "...Ariadne musica." and one at the end of the sentence mentioning the 24 entries. The three remaining are only three assuming you are unable to find a single source for all three of them. If you can they are whittled down to two for two sentences and one of them covers the second of the first two. This leaves only three citations where we had been terrified there where seven. Hyacinth (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The WTC fugue paragraph was just an example. Obviously, in other cases sentence structure of a comparable paragraph may require seven citations or more. The task of writing good prose is difficult enough by itself. Having to think about tweaking sentence structure to reduce he number of inline citations makes it even more demanding. --Jashiin (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this being done again?  WP:V applies everywhere.  I think everyone agrees that more inline citations is good, but I think people are worried that if we post specific rules how how WP:V is implemented on this page then thousands of articles are going to become littered with fact-tags for information that is relatively obvious or trivial to verify.  What's driving this?  This doesn't feel productive to me.DavidRF (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my perspective is that of a content-editor. I mostly contribute by writing new articles, expanding exising articles, etc. This is difficult work by itself - digging for multiple sources, compressing information for Wikipedia, deciding on what and how to cite, not to mention the actual writing process. The need for citations makes it more difficult, but that's okay. However, it is becoming even more difficult because random people are constantly challenging subject-specific common knowledge (which does not require citations per When to cite), and sometimes really trivial things. And apparently the tendency is towards making writing articles an extreme torture for the writer, when every tiny bit of information, no matter how obvious, trivial, etc., has to have an inline citation. I'd like to try to make content-editors' jobs easier, hence my comments here. It's only common sense that, while more inline citations is good, there can also be too many of them. --Jashiin (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Describing drum sizes
Would Describing drum sizes be any good incorporated into the MOS? Hiding T 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on that? Should that page be an official Guideline (or indeed part of this Guideline)? Is it crucial that we keep our descriptions of drum sizes consistant in the manner described on that page?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sophomore album vs. second album
I see at MOS:MUSIC: "Avoid referring to an artist's second album or single as 'sophomore', as this term is not widely understood outside North America. Just use the word 'second'". However, I do not see a discussion of this here. So I am wondering if this is a concensus? —Iknow23 (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an american and I don't have a problem with this. "Second album" is actually more common anyways.  "Sophomore" is just a colorful adjective that some American writers use in reviews to flower up the prose a bit.  No big loss in my opinion.DavidRF (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an Aussie and can state that the term "sophomore" is understood here (mainly due to our television content :)), but not used in this sense to describe a CD. I would think "second" is best. Jwoodger (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also an American. I don't really have a problem with it either, but wanted to get some input from others. I was concerned that possibility MOS:MUSIC was 'unilaterally' edited by a SINGLE person with just their POV. So THANK YOU for your comments. I am satisfied that WE have come to a concensus. I shall continue to monitor this TALK page for awhile. Barring any groundwell of support for the OTHER option, things shall remain the same. —Iknow23 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am from the UK and sophomore just sounds pretentious to me; then again so does eponymous as opposed to self-titled. I was unaware that these terms were used by reviewers before I started editing WP, and I suspect other UKers will be in a similar position.  However, the question of meaning is quite easily dealt with by using a dictionary so the assersion that non-US readers will get confused is fairly irrelevent, IMO.  After all, musicians use all sorts of weird terms...!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of particular spellings
eg timpani vs tympani vs tympany. Also, timpano (the correct Italian spelling) vs timpanum (widely used, though technically incorrect), tympano and tympanum. Do we need to specify that consistency is needed for these? BTW, why is timpani in the disputed plurals section given that no alternatives are presented (timpanos or timpanums are possible but rare)? Ditto, cellos—but then again these are often seen as celli so that possibility should be in the guide. I guess this latter anomoly was a result of the brief discussion almost 2 years ago (above)? --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)