![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Following my audits a couple of months back and the more recent move of Wikipedia: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)#Page Split. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Done 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)
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:
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 have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Eponymous musician categories 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)
(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).
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)
[3] 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
An RFC is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes 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)
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)
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)
I intend to remove this embarrassing graphic soon unless these issues can be fixed. Tony (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles
Tony (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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#Discography 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)
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)
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)
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)
Parallel fifths between alto and soprano. Could we please get rid of this embarrassment? Tony (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry. -- Eleassar my talk 12:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Following my audits a couple of months back and the more recent move of Wikipedia: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)#Page Split. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Done 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)
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:
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 have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Eponymous musician categories 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)
(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).
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)
[3] 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
An RFC is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes 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)
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)
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)
I intend to remove this embarrassing graphic soon unless these issues can be fixed. Tony (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles
Tony (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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#Discography 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)
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)
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)
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)
Parallel fifths between alto and soprano. Could we please get rid of this embarrassment? Tony (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry. -- Eleassar my talk 12:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)