Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 6

Split-apart of MUSTARD
Following my audits a couple of months back and the more recent move of Manual of Style (MUSTARD) over to Wikipedia space, it has been suggested that the page be split apart into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD). Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ This has now been completed. Sections have been left out of the merger and MUSTARD has now been marked as Historical. For the full discussions surrounding this see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD). Hopefully, everything contained in this present Guideline now covers, without redundancy or contradiction, all the points covered in MUSTARD but not in other Guidelines. It will still need to be tidied up: I will do that as soon as possible. Thanks to all all to helped me in this mammoth task! --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Huge Images?
Under Images, we are told to use 550px for most scales and melodies. Is that really correct? My screen resolution is 1680x1050 on a 20" wide-screen monitor and I can make out most images below 350 pretty easily. Indeed, I don't see many images out there at a resolution of higher than about 350.  The example in MUSTARD is now at 350px after Hyacinth changed it from 550px (and is actually still too big, IMO).

At 550px:
 * The example in C major (presently at 330px): [[Image:C Major scale (up and down).svg|thumb|550px|A one-octave C major [[musical scale|scale]].]]
 * The opening of Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) (presently undefined): [[Image:Beethoven symphony 5 opening.svg|550px]]

Longer melodies would become impossible! Then again, the idée fixe from Symphonie fantastique is more readable this way. I guess it depend on the original file size:

Any thoughts? I ask this in advance of merging large parts of MUSTARD into this page (see above). For example the sections on images and notation can easily be merged, IMO, as long as they are giving the same advice which follows consensus and best practice. I am not sure they do, yet --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the first advice should be to present images at the default size for thumbnails, without any enforced size parameters. (Note that logged-in users can modify the actual display size in their Preferences.) On the right is the Beethoven example in its default thumbnail size, which looks perfectly acceptable to me. In fact, I think it would still look OK at 2/3 that size (see left).


 * For specific images in specific contexts, readability concerns may ask for a larger size, or indeed for a smaller size. On the other hand, a larger version of a file is only one click away (on the image itself), and in certain circumstances this is well worth pointing out in the caption.
 * In the end, I think it's not possible to pronounce hard rules on image size any more than it's possible to formulate hard rules on the style of writing – it's part of editing an article to determine the appropriate textual and visual style. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. To your "present images at the default size for thumbnails" I would add "only tweaking if necessary for readability", or some such (which I think is what you meant).  Many editors and readers won't realise that they can click the image to see the full size version, so we would need to point that out if we needed to use a smaller image size for any reason.  Also, the default is occasionally quite small (presumably created on a huge screen at low res!) and so even clicking through doesn't always help.  I forgot that you can change the display size in preferences.  I'll have to check to see if I have...  Thanks for that reminder!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous musician categories
I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians on the need for such categories. While I believe they are useful at some point, there is no consensus on when they become so. If interested, please share your opinions on the subject. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group
(I would very much like to see this added as a rule to the music MOS, but feel like I should gain a consensus before doing so. I will most likely open up a vote on this issue after I have a chance to see what reaction - if any - comes from my edits. If there currently is an official stance already posted somewhere, PLEASE let me know. Since Brit Eng follows a different standard on this issue than other languages, for now all edits will be confined to NON-British musical groups.)

I will be systematically going through and editing every single article that uses the plural forms of passive verbs when referring to bands. (i.e. - "The Killers are an American rock band" "The Moldy Peaches were an indie group") I'm not sure why this glaring error is something that has been used only for musical groups, but it is most assuredly incorrect. A band is a single unit - when talking about a band, in any tense, the singular form should always be used. Were we to be talking about the members of the band collectivelly (i.e. - "Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward are the comprising members of the band She & Him") then it would be appropriate to use the plural forms of verbs, pronouns, etc... For further clarification, take the article on the United Nations. While the UN is made of of a large number of individual countries, the organization known as the United Nations is one single thing. So the article (correctly) states "The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN) is an international organization..."

(For a simpler way of looking at it, try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "The Killers are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "The Killers is a band..." I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it. Obviously, there are a lot of articles out there which need this kind of editing and it will take a long time for me to do so by myself. Feel free to pitch in and make alterations anytime you see this plural/singluar error. Send any questions, comments or objections to my talk page. (This entire text will be copied verbatim into the talk page of evey band article I correct.) ocrasaroon |   blah blah blah    20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC).
 * It's not an error. That's correct, in British English. PL290 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please link me to something on WP that definitively says that? This encyclopedia should be uniform. If all other subject areas correctly use the singular form when referring to a collective unit, that same principle should also apply to musical groups. ocrasaroon (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia IS uniform, but the manual of style makes allowances for differences in national differences in ENGVAR spelling and useage. The British protocol of using the plural form has been part of our grammar since time immemorial and applies to not only musical groups but all collectives; it could equally apply to members of clubs, trade unions, even companies etc. Please desist from including any British articles in your planned task or multiple edit wars may result. Many thanks. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 21:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your project is misguided in ways beyond the ENGVAR issue. ENGVAR certainly applies to situations like The Clash are... but Was (Not Was) is..., and in those cases we should follow the dialect most associated with the band's home grounds.
 * But even in American English, plural verbs are used when the band name is plural, so definitely The Bobs are..., even though The Bobs are an American group. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When writing about a British band we should use the normally accepted method of writing that is used in Britain - that is what WP:ENGVAR basically says. How do we know what the normally accepted method is? Well, we look at how other notable publications, such as newspapers, write. Three of the British quality newspapers publish an online style guide: The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Of these three, The Guardian and the The Times give guidance on how to deal with band names and they both say that band names should take the plural verb. In the "band names" entry of its style guide, The Guardian says, "Bands take a plural verb: Editors are overrated, Iron Butterfly were the loudest band of the 60s, etc"; and in the "collective nouns" entry of its style guide, The Times says, "Prefer plural use for the couple, family, music groups and bands, the public, sports teams". --JD554 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is great stuff, :)) "Three of the British quality newspapers", who all happen to have 'The' in their titles: The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. I think it's a shot in the foot time...--andreasegde (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(music)
I'm trying to gain a fuller understanding of this particular phrase: "Mid-sentence, the word "the" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground..." riffic (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When a band's name is indicated as The Beatles, "The" is capitalized. For example, John Lennon was a Beatle.  John, Paul, George and Ringo were The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * your usage seems to contradict the above text. riffic (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the above text must be amended to include The Beatles, as a trademark.

The Beatles' trademark document, which says. "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " Therefore, the use of 'The' must be used as it is part of a trademark. --andreasegde (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you'll find that most band names have been trademarked so no need to consider this particular band an exception to the manual. Riffic, my guess is that the part of the manual that needs clarification is ... may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground...; perhaps the following would be clearer: ... may be preferred when amid a comma-separated list (e.g. The Beatles, The Velvet Underground...). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps as proven by in the US. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This entry in the MoS is not about any particular band; it is about all bands whose name begins with the definite article. If you want to argue that a particular band is an exceptional case, then take that up on the talk page for the particular band, not this one. Another clarification attempt: Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks but may be preferred when amid a comma-separated list (e.g. “... bands such as Led Zeppelin, The Velvet Underground ...”). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "take that up on the talk page for the particular band, not this one." This is exactly what has been done, but it has been said that it would be better to talk about it on this page, with which I fully agree.--andreasegde (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia MoS page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)) has only four references, and absolutely none for the paragraph/section we are talking about. As an article, it would be condemned as not being good enough, so are we supposed to believe that it has any rights at all? We are talking about a trademark, which was a legal contract that was signed by all four of The Beatles (or THE BEATLES). Is anybody saying that this Wikipedia MoS page can ignore the law?--andreasegde (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a case for the 'the': It is a fact that The Beatles played in Paris, but the Beatles who went there on holiday were Lennon and McCartney. --andreasegde (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While such a distinction is theoretically valid, it's very rarely used in reliable sources; journalists and authors tend to stick with either "The" or "the" throughout so they don't have to scrutinize every instance to determine if they're referencing "The Beatles" as a single entity or "the Beatles" as a collection of individuals (as well as many cases being debatable). Most (but not all) choose to use "the", as it causes less harsh inconsistencies than "The". It's less mentally jarring to read that "... the Beatles played at Shea Stadium" (because each of them did, though together as a group) than to read that "... fans were jealous of The Beatles' wives" (which looks like the entire band participated in multiple weddings). –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that journalists and authors are being lazy because they don't want to "scrutinize every instance"? That's their job, and they're not doing it very well. I'm sure it's "less mentally jarring" to skip over the rules, but we can't start allowing that on Wikipedia.--andreasegde (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * One copy editor recently posted a brief explanation here. –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a great article, User talk:Mainstream Nerd, and that's a serious compliment.

However, I must draw your attention to this: "Under deadline, most editors cannot spare the time to check whether 'the' is part of the formal or legal name of every band, magazine, newspaper, agency, or other entity they run across. Lowercasing "the" in every proper name makes life much easier. " It makes life easier, huh...?

This says that journalists and their editors are being lazy, and are not inclined to check the full facts. Wikipedia does not allow this, because we have to get it right, or it will be deleted.--andreasegde (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I make a less disparaging assumption about journalists/editors: when using their finite time, verifying facts takes priority over dealing with minor formatting issues. I take it that part of your point is that the choice of formatting can convey factual information, which may be true to a very limited extent. The problem is that the "the/The" option has no "right" or "wrong" answer; when at least one respected English usage style guide explicitly endorses "the", and it's used in an Oxford University dictionary and the Encyclopædia Britannica, it can't be labeled as sub-standard. I view it as traditional usage ("The") versus modern usage ("the"). It's a matter of preference, and the majority of printed sources have chosen the latter. As for "The Beatles" being official and/or trademarked, that doesn't create an obligation for authors to use that precise presentation for every mention of the band. Just as it is sometimes acceptable to refer to Sgt. Pepper, even though that's not the album's official name, it's also sometimes acceptable to refer to the album's creators as the Beatles. –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "sometimes acceptable to refer to the album's creators as the Beatles", just as it is acceptable to write The Beatles. During GA and FA reviews, I have often read the comment that it should be one or the other so as to be consistent. As written in the Wikipedia MoS, The Beatles is given a capital letter when linked. When written again as the Beatles, it is obviously not consistent. As for "verifying facts takes priority over dealing with minor formatting issues", I would agree, because journalists check the facts, and editors are there to correct the grammar, which is also what we are here to do. As for trademarks, I would be interested to know what the Heineken company would say if newspapers referred to it as heineken.--andreasegde (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am putting forward this statement to be added to the MoS: "Names that are linked in capital letters at the beginning of an article should remain consistent throughout the article: The Guardian, The Times, and The Beatles. This also applies to trademarked (™) names."--andreasegde (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is incompatible with the current MoS which is the result of this discussion in which the consensus was to follow mainstream practice as identified from the majority of other publishers. If you wish to change this entry in the MoS then you will have to change consensus as to what constitutes mainstream practice. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus for this is accepted by The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK), The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, The Wire magazine, The Fortean Times, and The London Evening Standard. Are these papers mainstream enough?
 * BTW, I noticed the four Supports in the discussion, but not one person objected, or even abstained? It seems like an awful lot of people weren't contacted, and it still doesn't answer the question that "Names that are linked in capital letters at the beginning of an article should remain consistent throughout the article."--andreasegde (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No answer? Of course not. The consensus of the 'magnificent four' rules. It's a done-deal, and let's just all agree with that shall we? BTW, you write, "Your proposal is incompatible with the current MoS." This invalidates any premise that the 'current' MoS is fixed. --andreasegde (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion that took place in April involved a number of different people with differing opinions who reached a consensus that for band names, based on what is most commonly used in mainstream publications deemed as suitable role models for WP, 'the', not 'The', should be used in running prose (regardless of such things as whether the subject of the 'the' is the subject of the WP article or whether the band name is registered as a trade mark). Whether or not the previous discussion considered all of the publications that you mentioned, I don't know, but it seems that many were considered.  (Personally, I believe that WP is closer to a book than a newspaper so would rate books higher than newspapers in this respect anyway).  As such, it seems reasonable to assume that the conclusion of that discussion is valid.  At no point have I suggested that the MoS is fixed, indeed I suggested above that you could change it by gaining a new consensus.  In doing so though, you would have to come up with a convincing reason as to why the conclusion of the previous discussion was invalid.  Re-presenting only one side of the argument does not convince.  Neither does pointing out there there were no objections; indeed this is the very nature of coming to consensus — opinions had differed at the start of the discussion.  As for your 'question', it is somewhat hard to comment since a number of aspects of it are unclear: Names that are linked in capital letters — what does this mean? Wikilinked? All caps.? Initial caps.? at the beginning of an article — does this mean in the lead para? Your list The Guardian, The Times, and The Beatles — is this exemplary or definitive?  Given that this section of the MoS is about music, why are there newspapers in the list? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe a 'consensus' of only four people is not enough, and a new discussion should take place. I will take it upon myself to contact as many editors as possible, because this has to be accessible to all. The only problem is on which page it would take place. The ball is now in your court.--andreasegde (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, as you believe that a new discussion should take place, its entirely up to you how and where you do it. However, it seems that you have 3 choices, in descending order of sphere of influence: the MoS, the MoS (music), or Talk:The Beatles.   — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I alread did that, and I found this: Correct (title):	J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. Seems some people missed it.--andreasegde (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but band names are not 'artistic works' (though of course 'The Beatles' a.k.a. 'The White Album' is an artistic work). Hence band names need separate consideration, as is done on this page, MoS (music). Newspaper names also need to be considered, either on the MoS page or elsewhere. In the general case, WP chooses to use the most prevalent (and hence recognizable and understandable) style used by the reliable sources used to compile WP. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So that's why this Manual of Style (music) page has only four references, and the Names (definite article) section has absolutely none. Exactly where are the reliable sources?--andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The MoS is a 'Project Page', not a WP article, so does not require RSs. Its constituents do require justification — these are the points of consensus arrived at on the talk pages. IMHO, the MoS should include references to these consensus discussions so as to easily provide the justification should the MoS be challenged.  Where the RSs come in is in the talk page discussions; the predominant style used by the sources is identified by discussion and selected as that to use for WP.  As the MoS says, if it is unclear what the predominant style used by the sources is, then consult more 'high-quality' sources. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the supposed consensus was exactly four people, with nobody disagreeing, abstentions, or even people that couldn't make their mind up. That's something that all politicians would love to be a part of. I think it used to be called the Politburo.--andreasegde (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose I shouldn't have expected an answer.--andreasegde (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said all there is to say; if you feel that there is new evidence that conflicts with that previously discussed, then present the new evidence (and refer to the old) in a new discussion. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry folks, been a bit busy in real life and haven't followed this closely&mdash;some of the points may be addressed by the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)/Archive 3. I'm not convinced capitalization when listing is desirable; I believe it's intended for things like infoboxes and tables, but I'll ping User:Rothorpe, one of the editors who contributed to the earlier discussion, as I seem to remember he mentioned it at one point and may be able to provide the clarifications requested in the section. PL290 (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, please do. I suspect that there are only two categories of major exception: quoting and emphasis. Emphasis currently includes bold and italics (though there are currently no examples on the Project page).  I have to say that I'm leaning towards categorising wikilinking (i.e. when a term is introduced in an article other than its own) as a type of emphasis.  Note however that there appears to be nothing exceptional about this subject w.r.t. music; i.e. clarifications if necessary can go on the main MoS and the music MoS can just confirm that band names are not exceptions to it.—Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me, PL290. I agree with you when you say: 'I'm not convinced capitalization when listing is desirable'. 'The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Kinks...' conforms with normal usage in the more upmarket publications, regardless of whether they are books or newspapers—which is the standard to which Wikipedia should aspire. I also agree with Wrapped in Grey that linking may sometimes be a kind of emphasis, but perhaps this is a bit subtle to be exactly codified in the MoS. Capitals in infoboxes and tables, certainly: indeed, sentence case looks best in infoboxes when a link is on a new line, whatever the first word. So perhaps it should depend on what kind of listing, new line or not. Rothorpe (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like to add that this is of course distinct from titles that have The (as well as italics), as in the following links: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The New York Times, The Taming of the Shrew... Rothorpe (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Year x and non-breaking spaces
In "X in music" (1951 in music &c.) articles under popular music there are lots of lines like * "Alice In Wonderland"    w. Bob Hilliard m. Sammy Fain with lots of non-breaking spaces. Is there any reason for that, is that in the MOS? Shouldnt that be a spaced n-dash, like * "Alice In Wonderland" – w. Bob Hilliard m. Sammy Fain ospalh (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Alice In Wonderland"    w. Bob Hilliard m. Sammy Fain
 * "Alice In Wonderland" – w. Bob Hilliard m. Sammy Fain
 * ... not to mention that we could spell out "words: " and "music: " or "words by" and "music by".ospalh (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Styleguide Taskforce - still active?
The note at the top of this page refers to the 'Wikipedia Styleguide Taskforce'. Are they still active? -- Klein zach  01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just in the archive, I'm not sure it every took off. Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

RFC regarding use of succession boxes in song and album articles
An RFC is taking place at WT:CHARTS to discuss the merits of their use on articles for songs and albums that reached number one on various music charts. It is hoped that the outcome could result in policy placed on the MOS for music or other appropriate location. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Jazz/pop roman numeral notation
Hello. I have noticed that the roman numeral notation for chords in various Wikipedia articles is very inconsistent. The guidlines given here leave much to the discretion of individual editors. Is it possible that the concerned editors involved could agree upon a clear and universal standard? Thanks for reading.BassHistory (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with several systems for notating jazz harmony, each with varying degrees of similarity to the standard Classical figured bass notation. However, actual figured bass notation obviously can't be used for jazz and popular styles, because of chords such as I7 and IV7 (dominant, not major 7) and I6 (major 6, not tonic in first inversion), and because there is generally no need for the notation of inversions.  Also, the inconsistencies throughout the Wikipedia music pages over use of upper or lower case numerals creates a great deal of ambiguity.
 * For the preceding reasons, I would like to suggest that different guidelines be given for classical topics and jazz/popular topics.
 * Further, what is the policy for notation of secondary dominants? Since there is really no such thing as VI7, shouldn't this be notated as V7/II (or V7/ii)?
 * Lastly, can anyone contribute to this page, or is it solely up to admin or select editors to create these guidelines?
 * I think jazz uses superscript for V7 etc. The secondary dominant is notated in a number of ways in the literature. V7/ii is just one way—not a bad one if the reader knows what it means throughout the article. Tony   (talk)  08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ABACAB or A–B–A–C–A–B?
For describing the order of recurring themes within a musical work, do we write ABACAB (no separation), A-B-A-C-A-B (hyphen separation) or A–B–A–C–A–B (en dash separation)? En dashes would be the same as harmonic progressions: I–IV–V–I.

There is no coherent Wikipedia style in use as far as I can tell. The article Piano Quintet No. 2 (Dvořák) uses hyphens to describe "A-B-A-C-A-B-A" while the article Magnetic Rag uses no separation to describe "AABBCCDDAA". The article about Dorian mode says that Milestones (composition) was written as "aabba". Note that articles about poetry rhyme scheme are similarly non-uniform: Sicilian octave tells the reader its rhyme scheme is "A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B" (hyphens) while Limerick (poetry) says "aabba" (lower case and no separation). The article Rhyme scheme uses commas sometimes, and otherwise uses unseparated letters to signify a stanza and a space between stanzas: Cinquain is "A,B,A,B,B" and Shakespearean sonnet is "ABAB CDCD EFEF GG". In the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003), the poetry rhyme scheme is described as lower case letters separated only by stanza, making Shakespearean sonnet into "abab cdcd efef gg". Chicago offers no advice regarding recurring themes in a piece of music.

Whatever the consensus, let's put this into the MOS under hyphens or dashes, even if consensus is to use no separation at all. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello there Binksternet what you say sounds good to me ..however should take a look and see if Composers, Classical, Opera and Jazz have interest in this - as they may have some project guidelines already for this.


 * Perhaps someone can check Grove online? I've looked in (unsearchable) print but I can't find a good example. -- Klein zach  06:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * En dashes are the obvious choice, because they express a relationship, range or movement between the items. The effect is much clearer to the reader in visual terms, too. Tony   (talk)  08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad notation graphic

 * It is huge. Why?
 * The alto and soprano are in parallel fifths, a basic grammatical error. Why?
 * The figure "6" should be superscript, not as large as "IV".

I intend to remove this embarrassing graphic soon unless these issues can be fixed. Tony  (talk)  01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical note sequences
We have unspaced en dashes indicated for harmonic sequences but what about individual note sequences? Should we use spaces, commas, hyphens, or en dashes between the notes?
 * Spaces: G F E B♭ E
 * Commas and spaces: G, F, E, B♭, E
 * Hyphens: G-F-E-B♭-E
 * En dashes: G–F–E–B♭–E

In the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003), the sequence of musical notes is separated by unspaced en dashes, the same as a sequence of harmonic progressions. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually we follow Grove. This uses spaces, though big ones (ems?), e.g. entry for Theinred of Dover. If you want another opinion you can try JackofOz who has worked on music editing style. -- Klein zach  06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * En dashes are consistent with WP:MOSDASH. Is there a way of avoiding the gap between the B and the flat symbol? At least on my browser, it's obstructive. Tony   (talk)  08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony1. Aside: the template Music renders the accidentals better: G–F–E–B♭–E. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip about better-looking flats. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that templated flat symbol is much nicer: smaller and closer. Tony   (talk)  02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

$\begin{matrix} 7 \\ 4 \\ 2 \end{matrix}$ which yields $$\begin{matrix} 7 \\ 4 \\ 2 \end{matrix}$$ (which is a bit rare, compared to $$\begin{matrix} 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 \end{matrix}$$ (which, I believe, may also be written as $$\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 2 \end{matrix}$$)). For the coding details, see Help:Displaying a formula; for the syntax of figured bass, you're on your own. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone at WP once showed me how to do 7/4/2, etc, vertically, as figured bass, but it was a long time ago and I haven't yet hunted it down. There's no mention of how to do it here. Anyone know? Tony   (talk)  11:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean something like:

Capitalization in titles of ballets and operas
I'm afraid I'm lost, trying to find the style guide for titles of ballets and operas. I've seen occasional mention in edits of there being such a guide, but I'm wandering around unable to find it.

Specifically, I wonder why there appears to be a rule that only the first word may be capitalized in a title, even when it is an article. I had long been under the impression that standard capitalization rules require the first significant word following the article to also be capitalized. This came to my attention looking for Stravinsky's Le baiser de la fée and Les noces, which look very wrong to me.

Whatever the rule is supposed to be, it is not being followed consistently. For instance, under List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky I find for example Histoire du soldat (The Soldier's Tale); Oedipus rex; The Rake's Progress; The Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du printemps).

Or, for instance, under List of compositions by Sergei Prokofiev I find Le pas d'acier but The Tale of the Stone Flower.

Or is the language somehow supposed to be determinative? If we do not capitalize in French, then apparently Le Sacre du printemps will be wrong. I haven't tried looking for any German titles. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: For that matter, I'm curious about the rule that gives us Histoire du soldat (The Soldier's Tale), but The Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du printemps). As far as I'm aware, both of these were originally titled in French rather than English. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone from the Composers or Opera projects will likely respond with a better answer. But in the meantime there is Naming conventions (operas) and Naming conventions (music) you can look at see if they explain better.Moxy (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe there may be language issues involved. In French only the leading words is capitalized (for proper names in general), where in English, all important words are. I think this is the case anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Melodiya. That's sort of what it looked like, but it's still surprising that they would capitalize only the article. And thanks, Moxy - "Naming conventions" is what I was trying to remember, and find. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Between these two responses, I think nearly all of the apparent discrepancies are resolved. Thanks again. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all the Opera Project guideline is here. English, French and German all have different capitalization rules and we follow English rules for English, French rules for French etc. English and German are fairly simple, but in the case of French there are competing systems so it can be confusing. (According to the system adopted here)  Le Sacre du printemps (above) is incorrect. It should be Le sacre du printemps. If you look at the article The Rite of Spring you will see it is correct there. Does that clarify everything? I've done some work on this in the past, so please ask if anything is still unclear and I'll try to explain. Best. -- Klein zach  08:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article titles: should we specify Roman type?
My understanding is that all music article titles are in Roman (not italic) type. Should we include this is the MoS? I've had a look and I can't find this covered at present. The MoS refers to titles, but not article titles (i.e. the top text above the line). What do people think? -- Klein zach  02:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I fear this is correct from my vast experience (sic) in linking to featured content file and article names (at The Signpost). I've gotta say, italic face doesn't look so nice in the large bold form article titles are in. But we have the problem of inconsistency with the article text. I'm pretty sure Opera articles are meant to be italicised, and the titles of numbers within them in double quotes. I'm going to ask User:Noetica. Tony   (talk)  11:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure of your exact meaning, Kleinzach. Could you give a couple of contrasting examples? I'll then follow it up tomorrow. (It's late here in Australia.) Could turn out to be a question for WT:MOS.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare these two versions of La bohème: –.
 * Regarding numbers in operas: MOS:TEXT prescribes "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages …"; doesn't that require Mon cœur s'ouvre à ta voix to be italicised? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Musical numbers/arias/songs have always been put in Roman, to distinguish them from (italicized) works - but that's not really the issue here anyway. -- Klein zach  12:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's very simple, here is an article in the usual style: Calto (opera). And here is one with italics: Riders to the Sea (opera). There is a now a discussion about this in the Opera Project here, referring to an Rfc held last year. Apparently some biologists wanted to use italics to refer to species. . . . -- Klein  zach  12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exact form for names of articles causes SUCH problems, as we see here. That's taking up a lot of my time. I have no expertise in precisely this matter of style on Wikipedia; but I favour not using using italics for the titles of articles, even when they are constituted by titles of works that are normally italicised: titles of books, operas, etc. (Before we proceed, note how precise one has to be in stating these things! I could not work out what the question was at first, and needed examples.) Things to think about:
 * "1. By Wikipedia precedent, the styling used for a name in the text of an article is not adopted in the title. Clear examples: * The famous short poem 'Ozymandias' is correctly styled with quotes in the article about it: Ozymandias. But that article's title has no quotes in it. It would look strange with quotes, and might be hard to search for using Wikipedia's internal search engine, whose capabilities seem to change in ways that are not well advertised. Consider also a citation of the article if it had quotes ('Ozymandias'), in work outside of Wikipedia. It would have to go something like this: &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;See ' 'Ozymandias' ', on Wikipedia. That's bizarre, especially with its editorial change to styling of quotes when they must serve as inner quotes. * Similarly for the article Hey Jude, which would look weird as 'Hey Jude'. 2. Then again, look at the listings at the DAB article Stardust. Such variety of styling! Not all match the current forms of the articles that are linked there. Several have the styling that is appropriate for use in the text. But when a title appears on its own, like Hey Jude (not Hey Jude (song) for example, it seems rarely to have such styling imposed.  3. On that evidence, much work needs to done to bring order to these articles. Beyond that, I can say nothing right now."
 * I hope that helps.
 * Good to see you here, Kleinzach. I remember: we worked together a little before. I've been away, but am back on WP now. (For how long? No one can say.)
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, doesn't this settle the matter Article_titles?– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed for looking at this. Since I posed the question I've actually found the Rfc here and begun to understand the controversy a bit more. I've referred it to the Classical music project (and also the Music project). I'm waiting for comments. Best. -- Klein zach  03:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming proposal
Please take a look at and discuss WP:SHEETMUSIC, which has some overlapping material with this page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating orchestral work titles from other non-musical uses
I'm interested in opinions on disambiguating articles on Western orchestral music, specifically in cases where a work shares a name with a non-musical entity. If you care, please discuss it at WT:NCM. —  AjaxSmack  14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this consistent with MoS (music)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles

Tony  (talk)  13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather weird, isn't it? Is there a history to it? The Classical Music project guideline (WP:CAPM) simply says "For English work titles, and works well-known under an English name, capitalize the first word and all major words e.g. The Wand of Youth, Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis, Ride of the Valkyries. "

Deletion of music templates
There is a discussion here that may interest some of you, regarding the deletion of templates from music articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Announced future albums in discographies
When a band announces that an album release is impending, the album is inevitably added to the discography of the corresponding Wikipedia article. A current example is The_Kooks which contains the album Junk Of The Heart with the release date of 12 September 2011. I tend to revert such additions, citing WP:CRYSTAL but it would be helpful if the MoS provided a guideline as to if and when such releases should be added. Labalius (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deary me: parallel 5ths in example
It's the one in Notation: if the soprano voice is shifted down an octave to be the new alto, it will work. Otherwise, I think this should be deleted (in a week or two?) as an embarrassment. Tony  (talk)  08:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, that example is a transcription from a book (see File:D'Indy Tristan chord IV6-V small.PNG, although from which is not clear to me from that description). Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"is" vs. "are"
I think we might want to standardize the form of to be used in referring to a band. I noticed this when someone recently changed the Erasure article from "Erasure is an English synthpop duo…" to "Erasure are an English synthpop duo…." It struck me as strange because even if a band contains two people, it is still a single band, so singular words should be used. Also the word "erasure" is a singular noun. But apparently the "are" form is standard in UK English.

I see that some Wikipedia articles about bands with plural names like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and The Beatles use "are", and some bands with singular names like Tool, Dave Matthews Band, and Green Day are singular. I also see the opposite. Incidentally, the split in those samples also follows the American/UK divide.

Personally I think that "The Rolling Stones is an English band" makes more sense than "The Rolling Stones are an English band" because "band" is still singular. But then again, I'm an American. Fnordware (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I found some relevant information in the manual of style sections on plurals and national varieties of English. The whole "are" thing is addressed. A key sentence is An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. So I guess using one for British bands and the other for American bands would in fact be appropriate. Shall we add this to Names (definate article)? Fnordware (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article histories you will see that many, such as The Beach Boys, have been changed back and forth between "are" and "is" many times regardless of whether they are an American-speaking or British-speaking band. I concur with your suggestion, but I can guarantee many people will still revert it to their personal preference.  Part of the problem is that (I think) most of the music magazines, even American ones like Rolling Stone, use "are" (or other plural verbs).  Although in American English a collective noun uses singular verbs (see English collective nouns), there are some who would not agree that the name of a band is a collective noun.  For some it depends on whether the name is pluralized or not ("The Beach Boys are...", "The Association is..."). I have decided that for me this is too unimportant and hopeless to worry about.  I'm not even sure why I wasted the time to write this remark.  hulmem (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This debate turn up periodically. You may also with to see American_and_British_English_differences. Basically, US articles use is and pretty much everywhere else uses are. A few articles are debatable, in which whoever gets there first tends to decide it.-- SabreBD  (talk ) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 


 * These all sound like great reasons for setting a standard. If there's back and forth based on personal preference, it would be handy to point to the manual of style and put a stop to it. A key sentence in the differences article is The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural. So there are many times when you might say something like "Green Day are on vacation now," even in American English. But the Green Day article should (and does) start with "Green Day is an American..." because that sentence is describing the band as a whole, not the members of the band. Fnordware (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a standard. It's called WP:ENGVAR.  We don't need another one, and I oppose any proposal to say any more than ENGVAR already says. --Trovatore (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way I totally disagree that Green Day are on vacation is acceptable in American English. It simply is not.  In American English, that has to be is.  On the other hand, The Bobs are on vacation is fine, because that's more than one Bob.  In American English the agreement is with the noun, not anything to do with whether you're thinking of them as individuals. --Trovatore (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way (2), your original example, The Rolling Stones are a British band would be fine even if they were American, because it's more than one Rolling Stone. Again, it's very simple in American English:  It goes with the noun. --Trovatore (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would oppose the proposed change, as making editors employ a compromise form that is not part of their normal use would be unworkable. That said if you are serious about the attempt you should go for a rfc and post notices on relevant project pages so that there is a wide debate.-- SabreBD  (talk ) 08:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Correct about "The Rolling Stones are a British band" even in AmE. Here is the relevant quote: Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Saints are the champions, with one major exception: largely for historical reasons, in American English, the United States is is almost universal. Fnordware (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you take the Green Day example and add "The members of" then certainly 'are' would be needed. In this case it may be like the whole "x and I" thing. Just a thought, I'm not a grammarian (but I am American, BTW) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the standards are already in place (good news), but I still think it would be a good idea to mention them in MOS:MUSIC because of the various standards that intersect. So if the band name is singular, you say "Green Day is..." for an American band and "Coldplay are..." for a British band. If the band name is plural, you always say "The Beach Boys are..." For singular band names from non-English-speaking countries, I guess you just use whatever the article was set up with, making sure it's consistent throughout the article. Fnordware (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"with" - Preposition?
Quoting from the Capitalization section:

''The first letter in the first and last words in English song, album and other titles is capitalized. The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for short coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles ("short" meaning those with fewer than five letters), as well as the word to in infinitives.''

It seems I have a minor disagreement with another editor on this. I created the page for the Jackie Evancho album Dream With Me (originally under that title), and this morning (my time) someone decided to move it to Dream with Me. I went to requested moves and requested a reversal, which has itself since been contested. The problem is determining the usage of the word "with" in the title. Is "with" considered a preposition in itself such that it should not be capitalized, as WP:CAPS seems to suggest? I ask because I wrote the article and selected the title using iTunes as a major reference, and they use "Dream With Me". Hence that title suggestion. Are we going to disagree with a major source of information for the article over the capitalizatlion of a single word? And again, is "with" really considered a preposition? I agree with "and", "a", "the", and many other examples...but "with" seems a more major part of a title than any of those and doesn't seem to fit the term "preposition" to me. Am I thinking wrongly here? Should we not match a trusted source with a simple title? CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. As I pointed out here we need to be accurate with title names if they capitalize certain words. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. In what way is "with" not a preposition? --194.176.105.147 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm coming pretty late to this dance, but "with" is often an exception to the preposition and number-of-letters rules; I think in actual usage, as opposed to style manual rules (not just WP, but also others), it's more frequently capitalized than not. However, it largely depends on context. In this particular title, with is clearly a "major" word, and I would capitalize it just for that reason.
 * However, I must address CycloneGU's calling iTunes a "trusted source". Granted, I'm coming from the POV of classical as opposed to popular music, but iTunes - what you really mean is Gracenote - is garbage for titles. This is just ordinary people posting information, sometimes with more but all too frequently with less care. Gracenote/iTunes is not exactly the Library of Congress. It will give a pretty good idea of the information wanted, but never, ever, trust its accuracy. I agree with JamesAlan1986, but you also need to remember that CD publishers themselves will be inconsistent, perhaps putting "With" in one place and "with" in another, in the same CD's front cover, back notes, and booklet. The best source would be what's printed on the disc itself, unless it's in all-caps. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a more stable link to the earlier dispute: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 42. Hope this helps. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Music score example is fatally flawed
Parallel fifths between alto and soprano. Could we please get rid of this embarrassment? Tony  (talk)  00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at what it is before assuming it's 'flawed'? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been asked and answered before; see three sections up at . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry
Please, share your opinion at Village_pump_(policy). --Eleassar my talk 12:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)