Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 4

Linking & capitalising definite article in band names
Moved from WT:MOS as more related to this specific Music MoS --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere. When I first edited, I found it odd to write "The Beatles" instead of "the Beatles", as one would elsewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on that. I'll check out the Music MoSes and see what they say on the matter.  FWIW, their name includes the definate article therefore the article name includes the definate article.  It is probably in a section about article names somewhere as well as one about the use of articles  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTARD. Also WP:MOS. Art LaPella (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for that Art.  I knew it was there, just couldn't remember where.  BTW, I haven't got round to looking at MUSTARD yet but, FWIW, that section could certainly do with a tidy up—particularly, the ah... "example text"!  (And the pointless fact that it is bulleted, for that matter.)  Furthermore, the advice holds true for bandnames starting with with "A" or "An" such as A Perfect Circle so the section is misnamed  --Jubilee♫ clipman  07:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: The Beatles, the Beatles, and Beatles (through a redirect), all end up in the same location. So, there's no real problem here, once people become accustomed to the behavior of links. The first letter of a link is always internally capitalized automatically by the software, so using a leading "the" isn't actually any sort of problem. (there's also nothing at all wrong with creating a redirect from the name without the leading "The", just as has been done here using the Beatles example.) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand the original question correctly, I think the issue addressed isn't so much to do with the linking as with the naming: The Pixies is, in fact, wrong as is Beatles. The redirects do help to iron out the inaccuracies, no doubt, but we are best to avoid relying on the redirects (we are not supposed to, in fact, in the long run).  Anyway, all the issues are covered in various disparate places, we just need to bring them all under one roof for clarity, IMO.  Looking again, I wonder if the question was actually ironically rhetorical, given that "elsewhere" one would also always include the word "The" in the name "The Beatles"?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply concentrated on the technical aspect of the question itself, as the example is basically irrelevent. In the particular example given I agree that the article "The" happens to be a part of the title, and therefore actually should be capitalized. However, the question seemed to be primarily about the perception of a technical limitation to Wikitext (which doesn't actually exist), by my reading. Note that I purposefully changed the indentation level to reply directly to the OP as well, in order to attempt to show that my reply is going to a separate, yet corrolary, issue then the previous discussion. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair points. Anyway, we have seem to have covered all bases between us, whatever else is true!  The question has be well and truly answered, methinks (mehopes, anyway...)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers & links. My point was that use of "The Beatles", as opposed to "the Beatles" or "the Beatles", is, if not incorrect, then anachronistic. But I found that if I changed to either of the latter, the former would soon be reinstated. Not sure if that was the band in question, but see also: "The Rolling Stones", "The Who", but "the Grateful Dead". The Marvelettes is a good example of an article that mixes "The" with "the". Normal usage in the sixties at least was not to capitalise "The". Chris Davies's chart book, British & American Hit Singles, solves the problem very nicely, by removing initial "The" altogether – except for The The, of course – but that solution is not available in continuous prose. So regarding WP:MOS, I'd say we have to decide whether bands are like "The Hague" or "the United Kingdom". Pop history would seem to favour the latter; but let's be consistent, at least. Rothorpe (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I see your point now.  Technically, the answer is "if the official band name starts with 'The', 'A' or 'An' (The Beatles, The Who, A Perfect Circle, The Band) then that word is capitalised and linked but if the official band name does not start with one of those words we neither capitalise nor link it even if we would normally use it before the name (the Grateful Dead, the Pixies, the Eagles)".  However... who defines the "official name"?  The band?  The critics?  The publishers?  The publicists?  The media?  The public?  The only answer is that we must follow the sources.  But what if those sources are inconsistant?  Do we ignore usage from the 1960's because most of that coverage isn't online and the usage from 1995 on favours a different method?  It has to be case by case, I suspect but The Marvelettes, for one, needs internal consistancy.  Anyone any other thoughts on this?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One other thought: Pink Floyd used to be "The Pink Floyd Sound" then became "The Pink Floyd" before finally settling on "Pink Floyd". I have no idea if that helps matters much, though...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, who defines the official name? I remember when some people said "Grateful Dead", without "T/the". As for the Pink Floyd, maybe I'm out of date, but I would (just did) use an uncapitalised "the". As it happens, I've just been editing Mulatu Astatke, and found myself correcting the band with which he is associated to "the Heliocentrics". "Maurice Williams and The Zodiacs"? "Jay and The Americans"? No, that was not the usage at the time, so why change it now? Perhaps the MOS should say that whether the definite article is customary or not (which itself is sometimes controversial), it is better not capitalised. As for the indefinite article, though (A Perfect Circle), that's sufficiently unusual to warrant a capital as an essential part of the name, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree &mdash; when the The is in fact "part of the name", then it should be capitalized. When it isn't, it shouldn't be.
 * When is it, and when is it not? There is no objective test.  Deal with it.  But not in the MoS.  It's an inherently case-by-case problem, and the MoS can't help much.  --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem very ad hoc: The Damned, but the Sex Pistols. The Rolling Stones about 4/1 over the Rolling Stones... Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trovatore is correct I am afraid... ultimately the best we can do here at the MoS (and at WP, for that matter ) is give best practice advice and then follow the sources according that advice. Nothing more to be said, I suspect.  Sorry I open that can of worms further everyone!  Usage of "the" inside and band name is a different matter, though.  I think they are always lower case unless the singer and the band are different entities (as it were): Jay and the Americans but Bob Dylan and The Band.  Perhaps that ought to be mentioned?  Bruce Springsteen's band might cause some confusion, for one: E Street Band...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that we should or need to capitalize "The" in any band name. The New York Times does not capitalize the "the" in "the Beatles." What I've seen with the capitalized definite article, generally, is that the more professional the source or the more skilled the writer, the less often one sees it.  A mid-sentence capital "The" is an amateur's mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The MOS should say that, and that the should go outside the link: "the Beatles". Rothorpe (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's pull back on the reins at bit here. There are some recent discussions over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD regarding capitals. I'll check back throught the MUSTARD archives and the history to find any other discussions/edits etc related to this issue. At the moment, I am looking at ways of tightening up and clarifying the advice that these two main guidelines presently give using my user space. Links: User:Jubileeclipman/Manual of Style (music), User:Jubileeclipman/MUSTARD; talkpages used for my drafts etc at the moment but could be cleared for centeralised discussion, the drafts being moved to a different subpage. Any help on that process would be great. Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that Rothorpe has stated his thesis clearly (this always seems to have been where he was going) I can say that I flatly disagree. The definite article absolutely must be capitalized in, for example, The Who. That's their name, the Who is not their name. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'When it comes to a ground-breaking, iconic band like the Who...' Rothorpe (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * cduniverse.com is reliable how exactly? Then again .  And that from a newspaper with "The" in their name...  Maybe the times they are a-changin'...? --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the sense that WP is finally embracing normality in this regard, yes. As Darkfrog24 said, a mid-sentence capital "The" is an amateur's mistake. Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Trovatore, that's not the same thing as saying the word should cease to be treated as the definite article in running prose. And in my experience, the point made by others above holds true: high quality sources do not capitalize the definite article in running prose even when it is part of the formal name. There are only a few, very specific exceptions ("The Hague" being one of them). I remember being surprised when I first edited on WP, to find the capitalized "The" in some band articles. It's simply not what I find if I pick up almost any book on these bands. There are exceptions; some books and sites do it, but in my experience far more of them don't. See, for instance, the first two books I tried on Google preview: Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere: The Complete Chronicle of the Who 1958-1978 (among whose authors are Roger Daltrey and Chris Stamp), where you will find the following prose in Daltrey's intro to the book:
 * Kit Lambert and Chris Stamp were the fifth and sixth members of the Who.
 * One of my greatest frustrations with the Who was that we never really achieved our full potential in recorded sound.
 * Likewise The Rolling Stones: off the record by Mark Paytress:
 * Acknowledgements. To the Rolling Stones and their associates, ...
 * Introduction. According to Mick Jagger, now into his fifth decade as rock's quintessential icon, "so many books on the Rolling Stones are mostly garbage ... untrue". At last, then, here's one he may have a little less trouble digesting.
 * Clearly, when "The" is part of the band name, the word should be included when referring to the band. Capitalization of the definite article in running prose is an entirely different matter. I've got used to it on WP now; I suppose in the end it comes down to whether we want to be eccentric or follow the sources. PL290 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Miracles, The Ventures, The Who - it does look elegant, especially as a row of blue links. But, yes, it is eccentric. Rothorpe (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Names like The Who are capitalized for the same reason as The Hague or The Gambia. The word The in these cases is part of the proper name.  My intuition is not to capitalize it for the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, where it seems to me that the definite article is not so much part of the name.  As I say, I believe that the MoS can't help much on these.  It should be discussed at the level of each individual article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not clear cut. See my reply above to Rothorpe's quote from cduniverse.com  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the article titles that are so eccentric&mdash;you'd commonly find that capitalization in the title of a book or chapter on that band. But you don't mostly see it in the running prose. PL290 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Question: should Manual of Style (music) give specific guidance on the issue of the definate article in band names or should the issue be discussed case by case on each article's talk page? --Jubilee♫ clipman 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I have just found WP:NOTBROKEN which suggests very strongly that "The Beatles", "the Beatles", "the Beatles" and "The Beatles" are all quite acceptable, though "the beatles", "the beatles", "The beatles" and "The beatles" probably ought to be changed... Similarly, the pointlessly overpiped construction " the Beatles " would be best as "the Beatles",  the Beatles, "The Beatles" or The Beatles" depending on either editor's choice or in-article consistency, whichever takes precedence (editor's choice probably only in new articles and stubs, IMO).  I am strongly inclined to remove that bulleted example from MUSTARD  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MoS should guide - it's no different from any other point of style and consistency. As a separate question, whether the definite article is part of a particular band name should normally be clear from the sources, but if in doubt, treatment should be left to individual consensus at the article talk page. Whether to capitalize that definite article in running prose, however, is a general principle of style. Therefore, we should aim for consistency and MoS should determine the standard (just as with text formatting, dashes, punctuation and the like). In my experience, other than The Hague and some other very specific exceptions (band names not among them), most sources do not capitalize the definite article in running prose. Unless we want to be eccentric, MoS should adopt that standard. PL290 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Case by case &mdash; except, state the general principle that if the definite article is part of the name, then it should be capitalized. Whether it is part of the name is a question of fact, that the MoS cannot really help with.  As I've said, my intuition is that it is a part of the name in The Who, The The, The Band (these are like The Hague), but not so much in the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rothorpe stated: The MOS should say that [mid-sentence capital "The" is an amateur's mistake], and that the should go outside the link: "the Beatles". OTOH, we should avoid redirects, also.  However, to avoid the redirect we would need to write: "the Beatles "  As Art pointed out above, whether the first letter of the title is capitalised or not is irrelevent: The Beatles and the Beatles are not redirects to each other, they both go directly to the same page.  Therefore, whether the "the" is part of the link or not is not important, IMO: the Beatles works just fine.  (BTW, that actually shows that the word is considered to be part of that name as opposed to "the Pixies" where "the" is clearly not part of the name, at least according to the consensus of the editors of those articles.  We have an advantage over printed media, in that respect...)  If we do specify that the MoS should guide people on the use of capital "The" at the beginning of  band names, what exactly do we need to specify, therefore?  The normal usage in running prose seems important enough to include. Basically, something like:
 * In running prose, the definate article at the beginning of a band's name is not normally capitalised:
 * Wrong: In 1964, The Beatles wrote...
 * Right: In 1964, the Beatles wrote...
 * Is that more or less correct? Probably needs tweeking, of course.  Note the bullet point in the MUSTARD guideline hoewever: MUSTARD --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OTOH. that sentence has been in MUSTARD from the beginning: very first version of MUSTARD. The first band name was changed (because the band are called Misfits not The Misfits!) but the point has always been there.  Is it long overdue time to review that advice?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is "the normal use in running prose", at least for all names. The thing about The Hague is that it is not an isolated case; it's an example of a type of name.  Other examples include The Gambia, which I've already mentioned, The Ohio State University, and The Colony, Texas.  I imagine that The Colony in particular is not called out specifically in any of the style guides that Rothorpe mentions, but using the lowercase t would be every bit as wrong for it as it would be for The Hague. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I pointed out the section in MUSTARD which appears to say exactly the opposite of what I just proposed. Clearly, in 2006, editors felt that If the, a or an is the first word in a band's name, it should always be capitalized, as in "It is my opinion that The Beatles  rock, as does the Dave Matthews Band."  Now, in 2010, we have editors that appear to suggest the opposite and bring forth reliable publications to prove the point.  Perhaps the best we can do is require consistancy within articles and be silent on consistancy across articles? I.e. the above statement should be removed from MUSTARD and we do not add any counter-statement to this MoS.  We need more participation, however: perhaps stir up the Music Project and see what they feel?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps silence would be golden. But a compromise could be for the MOS to pronounce that while The Beatles and the Beatles are acceptable, the Beatles is preferable. Thus while no-one would be obliged to type " the Beatles ", neither should anyone feel encouraged to revert it. And if consensus creates exceptions, so be it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Beatles is bad for a different reason. Pipes are bad, m'kay?  I would definitely revert that construction, if only to the Beatles, which has the same effect, but uses a redirect rather than a pipe. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect better than pipe? Fine. I'm only concerned that the end result looks literate. Rothorpe (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you do. It's complete nonsense. Rothorpe (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Worse than that: it may be one single editor's personal opinion that has gone unnoticed and therefore unchallenged for 4 years. Look at the complete edit history of MUSTARD and notice the prominence of user:TUF-KAT in the earliest stages of the creation of that page.  I am making an appraisal of that Guideline as we speak, in fact, and am still figuring out how best to deal with it...  I'll post all my findings in relevent places within the next few days.  Feel free to be bold, though...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just took my own advice but linked to this discussion: diff --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, detective. Wrong at source, indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I get challenged... --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - Not you, but I - accused of fancruft, que horror! Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, a recent piece from the Guardian's website has an interesting penultimate sentence: . I expect other newspapers will agree... Rothorpe (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)...First sentence:


 * Apologies again for the "fancruft" statement, but it was in reference to something inserted that I thought was off-topic. In response to Rothorpe's reply at the MUSTARD talk page (replying here to prevent further split of the discussion over 2 pages), I don't think there is any question that examples can be found in reputable media, in which the Beatles, the Band, and the Who can be found with and without "the" capitalized.  The question is whether we want to establish a rule for Wikipedia, even if the rule is as vague as "sometimes one, sometimes the other, depending on research of official sources".  I really don't have an opinion as to what should be done, but I did find that the edits made so far were not clear, and even contradicted themselves, so I think this needs further discussion and changes, as the current state of the guideline is still not acceptable.  I'd also like to point out that MUSTARD always spells "capitalization" with a "z", so please make sure any changes follow this spelling.  (Unless you want to propose changing that too, but let's leave that for some other time.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A Knight Says: "I don't think there is any question that examples can be found in reputable media, in which the Beatles, the Band, and the Who can be found with and without "the" capitalized." I've posted a couple of examples without; I think it's now up to those in favour of capital The to find examples in reputable media with. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Knight's right: there's no doubt examples can be found both ways. But my impression is that one of them is far more common. Neither of the first two band biographies I tried at random on Google Books capitalize "the" (see details above); neither do the first two band biographies I open from my bookshelf. Perhaps our auditor would be prepared to conduct a small survey of a representative sample of books and report figures here. That might be more illuminating than challenging others to a race to find the most links for "my" way of doing it! PL290 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I've rarely seen "the" before a band name capitalized in the middle of a sentence, so if I were taking sides (and I'm not), based on personal experience, I would be on Rothorpe's side. I try to be mindful that rules of language familiar to me from school, newspapers, etc., are not universal.  Before using the internet, and especially Wikipedia, I had no idea there were so many differences between American and British English (even though, as a Canadian, I do have some awareness of it), so I try not to assume that rules familiar to me are correct everywhere.  For example, I notice British editors use the word "whilst" a lot, which to me is a word only used archaically in poetry.  And I recently read a discussion on Wikipedia about the word "sophomore"; apparently that's a word used by American editors, and British editors objected.  (I would have thought it would be the other way around!)  I mention all this because the rules of which spelling variation to use at Wikipedia, can be based on which country the subject of the article is associated with.  So if this is a "national variation on the English language" issue, the "most common" usage may still not be the correct one, and for that reason I'm not sure that counting Google hits (for example) would be the right approach to take.  Maybe we just shouldn't have a rule.  Okay, we still need to mention it, or there will be POV edit wars.  But maybe we can use the same rule that's used for the language question when the subject of an article is not associated with a country or continent: whatever standards are used by the original author of the article, should be maintained throughout the article.  (To quote WP:ENGVAR: "Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another.") --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point to check, but I'm sure it's not an ENGVAR thing. You've rarely seen it as a Canadian; as a Brit, I've rarely seen it either. And I've certainly never seen a rule saying that in British English one should capitalize "the" in the middle of a sentence. Also, the first two band biographies I picked from my bookshelf were published in Britain, and they don't capitalize it. No, I think it's universally fairly uncommon. Jubilee, in your impartial role as our auditor, you're ideally placed: how would you feel about conducting a little survey? Pick a number (10? 20?). Look at that number of band biographies: how many of them capitalize "the" in running prose? All of them? Half of them? Hardly any? None at all? PL290 (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry if the following verges on tl;dr but I think these issues need to be explored as fully as possible!)  I could certainly pop down my local library to find some biographies of the Beatles (or to find some biographies of The Beatles, if you prefer) but many of them will have been written in the 70's through the 90's.  Do we discount those because they might not follow current "best practice"? No idea. Also, we would need to factor in newspapers, magazines, journals, etc since these are the sources most editors actually tend to use for articles in WP, especially bios. The thing I find most intriguing is the fact that the statement I recently chopped out of MUSTARD actually said the exact opposite to that which most of you are saying: Leaving aside the inappropriateness of stating who or who does not "rock" in articles, the statement had been unchallenged for 4 years. Now we have most editors here stating the exact opposite, with only one (?), Trovatore, preferring the capitals but also preferring that the issue be raised at article level rather than MoS level. Is the present statement in MUSTARD correct? "If possible, check with an authoritative source to determine whether the word the is part of a band's name. For example, the Beatles is not correct, but the Pixies is. In either case, the opposite should always redirect (or be disambiguated) to avoid multiple articles."

- Names (definite article); MUSTARD as of 00:57, 8 April 2010 I am not sure now, going by what people are saying here. While The Pixies and The Pixies are unequivocally incorrect (they really are called Pixies, no "The", according to any source you care to consult), the case for [t/T]he Beatles and other similar bands ([T/t]he Kinks, [t/T]he Byrds, [T/t]he Doors, [t/T]he Hollies, etc) is not so clear cut. The Rolling Stones are possibly given the definite article to help distinguish from Rolling Stone? Whether or not the article in that band's name should be capitali[s/z]ed, I would not be in a position to say, definitively. Which is the point, really.

There is also the question of linking: "the Beatles vs. the Beatles (ignoring the lower case "the", for the moment). I would personally use the latter as it avoids the redirect (though that is not a reason to change any text, per se, as pointed out in WP:NOTBROKEN).  That approach also has the advantage of showing that present usage on WP prefers to include the article in that case (and many others) but exclude the article for the Pixies and the Dave Matthews Band and the E Street Band (again, among many others).

Proposal
Proposal - After long reflection, I would humbly suggest that we state (in MOS:MUSIC rather than in MUSTARD because this is an issue that affects more than just music articles) the following:
 * The inclusion of the definite article (the word "the" or "The") at the beginning of band names is often a contentious issue. As always, reliable sources should be checked to verify whether or not the word is part of the name.
 * Capitalization: Wikipedia takes no stand on the issue of capitalization of that word in running prose, even when "The" is unequivocally part of the name but whichever alternative is used, it should appear consistently throughout the article. Consistency within an article is necessary, of course, so if in doubt raise the issue on the article's talk page before making edits to resolve inconsistencies.
 * Internal linking: Usually, the simplest method of linking is preferred. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with using redirects, even in the following manner: "the Beatles", "The Beatles. See WP:NOTBROKEN for further details on this issue.

Does that make sense? I personally think it is the most inclusive approach that allows for both editorial choice and consistency and avoids edit wars and POV. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫ clipman 16:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In considering the proposed guideline, "Wikipedia takes no stand on the issue of capitalization of that word in running prose, even when "The" is unequivocally part of the name", I would suggest one thing: it would indeed be a reasonable guideline if the two ways are equally common in normal, mainstream practice. Otherwise, it would not be the best guideline. So before we try and word the guideline, I would be delighted if Jubilee will undertake a survey as he's offered to (and if anyone feels he should take any particular factors into account such as decade of publication, media type or country of publication, then please say what the significance is, but I honestly don't think those things make any difference to what he will find). Pick any 10 band biographies at random: the chances are that none of them uses "The" in running prose. Increase the number from 10, and you will only ever find a small minority that do it. If these are indeed shown to be the findings, isn't it time Wikipedia stopped doing it too, and shouldn't that be the guideline we end up with? PL290 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I don't think that I should be the only one the do that survey, however, as I could introduce elements of bias unconciously.  If the several of us here undertook that survey, however, and each one found 10 reliable biographies (which can include autobiographies, BTW, in certain circumstances) and bought the latest issues of 2 major pop/rock music magazines, then between us we will remove the element of bias and end up with a ton of sources to refer to.  I am beginning to suspect you are right regarding running prose, however...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Let's do that. PL290 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to the proposal marked Proposal: The second bulleted point has a sentence which reads: "Consistency within an article is necessary, of course, so if in doubt raise the issue on the article's talk page before making edits to resolve inconsistencies". First, I would drop the "of course" because we shouldn't presume an editor learning to use Wikipedia already knows things like that, nor suggest they ought to already know it, which may sound a little condescending to those who didn't.  Also, IMO, the best way to fix an article consistency problem (non-ENGVAR) is to determine the "original" standard for the article in earlier versions, and change the rest of the article to match.  Since the article already had two ways of saying something, nobody strenously objected to either before, so it should not be a controversial change.  If, after the change, other editors suddenly see the inconsistency for the first time, and think it should be changed to "the other way", that can be proposed on a talk page.  My reason for raising this, is I don't think we should be stating that this ought to be discussed first, because that could lead to accusations that an editor who decided to "be bold" didn't follow instructions.  Rather than give a lengthly explanation about how to handle article inconsistency, it may be better to point to WP:ENGVAR (if there isn't somewhere better) as an article with advice on the matter.  (Sorry to write so much about a small point.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ struck through presumptuous statement. I take your point on lengthy debate.  It also goes against the spirit of WP:BRD, now I look again.  Perhaps just say: "Be bold but be prepared to discuss your edit if challenged."  Better?  Worse?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: remove the second sentence, and append to the first: "but whichever choice is used, it should appear consistently throughout the article."
 * ✅ - replacing "choice" with "alternative" (as there are only two, anyway) --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (I managed to underline everything from that point on! You should see the diff!  Corrected of course...) --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions, contd (editing break)
At MUSTARD, I’d like to suggest the following changes to the Names (definite article) section. This is a separate issue from the running prose one, and that should be made clear:

FROM: If possible, check with an authoritative source to determine whether the word the is part of a band's name. For example, the Beatles is not correct, but the Pixies is.

TO: If in doubt as to whether or not the word the should be included in the name of an article, check with an authoritative source to determine whether it is part of the band's name. For example, the Pixies do not regard the as part of their name, so their article is called simply Pixies – in contrast with, for example, the Beatles''.

I think that gets the emphasis about right – on the Pixies.

…I drafted that before your latest post, Jubilee Clipman, then something came up. But I don’t see any harm in posting it now, as it refers to just one of your points… Rothorpe (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right that we need to look at each issue separately. This is a complex and contoversial topic that comes up time and time again; breaking it down into its componant parts rather than looking at the whole lot in one fell swoop in probably a better approach.  I see what you are saying in regard to Pixies: we appear to be claiming authority in the present text by stating "[X] is not correct, but [Y] is."  Not yet sure if you text is better (though I copy-edited it to avoid the curly-quotes).  Let's see what other think  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The other thing about the statement is, it's unclear what effect it has. Is it about naming articles, or does it go deeper? For example, the Pixies article prose throughout says that "the Pixies" did this or that (not just "Pixies"), but that's different from, say, Pink Floyd, where only "Pink Floyd" did this or that. I'm not really sure the statement is useful to keep, but perhaps Knight can enlighten us about its intended effect. PL290 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the removed bullet point, it was probably intended to cover all aspects of usage, including article titles, running prose, lists etc. As such, it is not specific enough as it stands, IMO  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should cover all aspects, and I think examples are very helpful. However, using the Beatles as an example of a band that considers "the" as part of their name, could be confusing to someone looking at the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and noting that in that instance (and it's not the only one), it just says "Beatles" on the cover, so there is evidence they semi-officially dropped the "the" in their later years.  "The Who" would be a better example. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, not that late: Beatles for Sale. Also, they became [band-with-no-name] for Rubber Soul and Revolver and then confused everybody by simply embossing The BEATLES on a white background for one album (what is its name anyway?) before returning to [band-with-no-name] for the next one (though the back actually shows the signs in Abbey Road, one of which proclaims their name to the world: "Beatles"). Yes, this band's name isn't the best to use in examples...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Record sleeves and labels are a guide to nothing. The Ramones billed themselves (almost?) always as "Ramones". We are concerned with continuous prose here. Rothorpe (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, actually: a band might call themselves "The Beas" but always refer to themselves (in jest) as "The non-Byrds". That does not mean they have actually changed their name nor even that they have adopted an alternative name: it's just a daft name-dropping (and probably very quickly palling) joke. Anyway, back to your original comment which addressed the issue of emphasis with respect to the requirement for sourcing. Basically: "If possible, check..." i.e., alway try to check vs "If in doubt... check" i.e. check only when necessary. This is an issue we haven't yet fully explored the implications of. Normally, we wouldn't be required to source a band's name in and of itself. After all, any fool can see it's their name: just walk into any record store or surf over to any online dealer and search for the band under their official name. (Which brings up another point I'll make shortly...) However, the question of whether "The" is actually an official part of there name might actually need to be sourced just as the history of the name might need to be sourced. OTOH, whether or not the band include the word "The" officially or not is either lost or ignored by almost any store you care to visit: an opening definate article is almost always ignored when band names are alphabetically sorted. Even The The cannot circumvent that policy, even if they, by default, do end up half way through "T" anyway. Not sure where you put !!!, however... usually before A, IIRC? --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a new one to me, but, yes, before A, unless you want to restrict sales to fans only, in which case it seems, C... Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary survey results
I haven't yet been to the library but have used Google's Book Search to find works mentioning various bands whose names begin with "The". I excluded Icon Group International (because they compile free text from websites such as Wikipedia) by including -inpublisher:icon in all searches. The band names were in lower case (not that it matters) and in quotes: "the beatles", "the kinks", "the who", "the byrds", "the hollies", "the stone roses", "the velvet underground", "the rolling stones", "the smiths", "the clash", "the doors". The last three were unhelpful since they came up with books about doors, clash of civilisations and people called Smith etc etc... Even "the rolling stones" wasn't great as it came up with books about stones that happen to roll for one reason or another. The other searches were interesting, however. I do not claim that the books I list below are 100% reliable sources, I just offer them "as is". There are plenty more where they came from (especially on the Beatles and the Byrds). However:


 * the
 * How the Beatles destroyed rock 'n' roll: an alternative history of American popular music by Elijah Wald
 * The Beatles: image and the media by Michael R. Frontani
 * The Who sell out by John Dougan
 * Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere by Andrew Neill, Matthew Kent, Roger Daltrey, Chris Stamp
 * The Stone Roses by Alex Green
 * The Byrds: timeless flight revisited : the sequel by Johnny Rogan
 * The dawn of Indian music in the West: Bhairavi by Peter Lavezzoli
 * a history'' by Neil V. Rosenberg
 * The Velvet Underground and Nico by Joe Harvard


 * The (not first word of sentence)
 * The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society by Andy Miller
 * The Who: the complete guide to their music by Chris Charlesworth, Ed Hanel
 * White boys, white noise: masculinities and 1980s indie guitar rock by Matthew Bannister
 * The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and Ham Sandwiches by Jeremy Simmonds

The only book on music that I presently have access to is The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century by Alex Ross. Chapter 14 of that work, "Beethoven Was Wrong", describes the music of "the Beatles"—small "t". By my count, that is now 10-4 in favour of "the". Neither scientific nor conclusive but a start. The library beckons... Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I decided to be rigorous and report the first 10 things I looked at. Only one of them uses "The" for a band name in running prose. Here are my findings: The first 3 "Rolling Stones" search results on Google Books: The first 3 "Beach Boys" search results on Google Books: The first 4 band biographies I tried from my bookshelf: So my sample shows 9:1 in favour of "the". PL290 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stones by Thomas Forget
 * The Rolling Stones: off the record by Mark Paytress
 * Jet magazine, Oct 6, 1997
 * Catch a wave: the rise, fall & redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson by Peter Ames Carlin
 * The Beach Boys by Mark Holcomb
 * EXCEPTION (uses "The" in running prose): The Beach Boys: Southern California pastoral by Bruce Golden, Paul-David Seldis
 * Careless Love by Peter Guralnick (the Rolling Stones, the Beatles)
 * Can't Buy Me Love by Jonathan Gould (the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones)
 * Big Star: the story of rock's forgotten band by Rob Jovanovic (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Byrds)
 * The Beatles Encyclopedia by Bill Harry (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys)
 * Excellent research! It is clear this is the standard WP should adopt. Rothorpe (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... 19 to 5 isn't exactly conclusive. And it is only preliminary.  I would personally adopt Knight's approach: follow the first major version or be bold, define a version and be prepared to discuss per BRD.  That makes more sense until we can dig out some proper Style Guides like Chicago and so on.  They might actually publish their advice online.  They certainly publish their Q&A's online  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this: where do you get 19 to 5 from? PL920's sample gives 9:1. That's very conclusive. Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 9:1 plus my 10:4, above. Can you add to that with more research?  Thanks.  BTW, I am going to be without internet access for a while (going to see my dad on short hotice (nothing worrying, don't worry)).  Basically, an enforced Wikibreak.  I'll be back Weds or Thurs.  Sorry about that.  I'll resume the audit as soon as I return.  My intial assessments of this and MUSTARD are being looked by the other auditors, at the moment (hopefully and if they get time).  I'll post it all when I return.  There is an enormous amout to deal with... the above is, unquestionably, just the tip of the iceburg  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I don't think WP should be taking its cue from minor publishers though. They are a law unto themselves, and good luck to them. Major newspapers are where it's at, the Times, New York Times, Observer, they all get it right. Have a nice break - Rothorpe (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow but there has been a lot of thought here since I last checked in. I commend Jubilee and PL290 for doing all the legwork of checking sources.  As for me, I support "the" when it is not the first word in the line, title or sentence. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding The Beatles: I'm surprised that the comprehensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy hasn't been mentioned as a reference point. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kindly supplied by an editor at Citizendium:


 * From the online Chicago Manual of Style Q&A section -

She adds: So external to the start of a sentence, or the name of a song or album title, the definite article 'The' should always be in lower case. - Rothorpe (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just been editing the newly (and surely correctly) renamed Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs and felt no need to change the bolded The Gladiolas, this having the same effect as (quoting the CMS above) "names that are captured within italics or quotation marks within running text" – even though it is a group name and not a title. Rothorpe (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2: follow Chicago Manual of Style
In this discussion, Rothorpe has now shown that the Chicago Manual of Style's own recommendation accords with what several editors judge to be the style Wikipedia should now adopt consistently, to bring our articles up to date with today's mainstream practice. Therefore I propose that the following section be added to this guideline.


 * Musical ensembles titled "The ..."

The matter of whether an initial word "the" is customarily included when referring to a musical ensemble, or is officially part of its title, should be established from the reliable sources pertaining to the musical ensemble in question. In any case, except where the title appears on its own in quotation marks or is bolded in the lead section, do not capitalize the word in running prose. This is shown in the following illustration from the Chicago Manual of Style:


 * Support - this accords with what I see almost everywhere else. PL290 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I've been looking over a few liner notes on old album covers, and (surprisingly) I've seen it done both ways. But then again, I also note that the vast majority of titles on album covers and labels have every word capitalized, Even The Small And Insignificant Ones... except when they're in ALL CAPS.  In my view, Wikipedia has moved on and created naming standards which are more up to date, flow better, and are easier on the eyes.  Consider the Wikipedia standard that section headings should not be in caps, like titles, which I'm sure goes against most of our pre-Wikipedia intuitions, but now we like it (sorry, I should just be speaking for myself) and the change being proposed would bring song and albums titles into similar progressive standards seen in the rest of Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support On the whole (and there are bound to be exceptions, intentional or accidental), the more reputable the publisher, the more likely it is to use lower-case "the" in mid-sentence in names such as the Clash and the Velvet Underground. The only exceptions are when "The" is required at the beginning of a sentence, is quoted or italicised, or is bolded in the lead. The Beatles discussion linked above shows that those who support mid-sentence capitals are also those more likely to commit errors such as omission or addition of apostrophes, howlers such as "proper grammer", or eccentricities like "grammatician". This is not a question of British English versus American: reputable newspapers on both sides are in agreement. Allowing an article's creator to dictate would be a recipe for further discord. On a wiki, mistakes can be corrected. For that reason, the MOS should make this its clear policy. Rothorpe (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Following a reputable style guide such as Chicago Manual of Style makes sense if only because we avoid the trap of following multiple reliable sources. Why is this a "trap"?  First, because reliable sources do not all agree with each other.  Second, because each reliable publisher/editor is not always consistent even within different issues of the same journal or newspaper or within the pages of the various books they publish/edit.  Third, because we end up having to back up every lower or upper case "t/T" with reams of sources "justifying" our particular choice, only to back down when someone else comes along with reams more "justifying" the exact opposite case.  In essence, we end up going round in circles if we rely on the practices while ignoring the theory behind those practices.  Chicago is probably the best style guide that both sets out the theory and explains best practice; I also have little doubt that the other major style guides agree with them on this point.  Anyway, this proposal seems to have been carried by a snowball vote so it can probably be implemented immediately  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. I do hope we don't explicitly say "follow the Chicago Manual of Style", but just adopt its policies as our own.  We don't want to usurp our own ability to override someone else's manual on certain points in the future.  (Or in the present, if the Beatles project decides they still want to use their rules for Beatles articles, which I believe they should be entitled to do.  Although that discussion was from some time ago, and if they see we've made a decision over here, they may decide to follow it over there.  But that's up to them.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the WikiProject Music/MUSTARD section (without mentioning any Floyds). I hope (pray!) that it meets with your approval. Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rothorpe - Good start. However, I would, personally, include the advice in this MoS rather that in MUSTARD.  Part of my thinking during this audit is to bring together the Manuals of Style under one roof therefore I would move advice such as this over here, especially where the advice affects more than just music articles.  I note that it states the exact opposite to the advice which I removed earlier in the month: perhaps we need to justify our "new" approach somehow (see the following).
 * A Knight Who Says Ni - The Beatles Project debate broke down with no consensus and they deleted the policy, as far as I can tell. I also agree that we should avoid giving the impression that we are blindly following Chicago (or any other external MoS).  The quote from them should, perhaps, be replaced with a link, therefore, and maybe we should find out what other Manuals say?  Rothorpe's reworking of MUSTARD is a good start, as I say, but I wonder if we do indeed need to somehow justify the advice rather than just state it blindly?
 * Everyone - With those thoughts in mind, we need to think carefully about how we present this advice if we are to avoid the extremes either of simply appearing to lay down the law or of blindly appearing to lay aside our independence and follow Chicago. Any thoughts?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That said... I just found this timely personal reflection on a userpage: Why Wikipedia doesn't standardize everything We do allow editors to choose whether to use Chicago-style citations or linked footnote style citations etc.  Do we really need to advise editors to use "the" as opposed to "The"?  I'm not sure we really answered that question  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think we would be having these discussions if we weren't continually having to deal with correcting edits that clash with current Wikipedia style. So I say yes, we do need to spell out guidelines for things like this.  Regarding MUSTARD vs. MOS Music, I have always used MUSTARD as a guide, and really only became aware of MOS Music through this recent discussion which was pointed to from MUSTARD's talk page.  It's too bad we have two guides for the same thing, but I don't agree with a suggestion made some time back, that MUSTARD is an old standard that nobody uses anymore.  (I guess someone has the exact opposite experience/bias as myself; there is probably no way to determine which is used more frequently.)  Regarding Jubileeclipman's edits, I made a couple of changes, explained in the edit summaries, hope these meet approval. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have looked at MOS Music before saying what I said above. It really doesn't cover the same ground as MUSTARD at all.  MUSTARD is definitely the guide for writing articles about musical artists.  It would not be appropriate to copy advice about article titles into MOS Music. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My main problem with MUSTARD as it stands is that it covers far more issues than a Manual of Style generally covers. I am still looking at all the issues but will post my results tonight along with my thoughts on the best way forward (which are pretty radical, be warned...).  As far as the definate article is concerned, though, we seem to have come to a consensus: don't use "The" mid-sentence (as advised also by Chicago and as seems to be practiced most often by the best publishers).  The advice can be tweeked but it probably describes the practice that most editors would feel most comfortable with  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If MUSTARD covers far more issues than MOS, that's probably why it isn't a MOS. MOS Music seems to be about technical articles (music notation, theory, etc.) rather than how to write articles about musicians, albums and songs, so I don't feel the articles conflict or overlap, and don't have a problem on that point.  But I do look forward to your suggestion for an overhaul. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MUSTARD claims: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." I personally feel it is time to move all of its advice out of project space, anyway: it can be split apart, IMO.  This MoS needs some work also.  The links to my initial appraisals and my personal recommendations are in the next section  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)