Note - sections of MUSTARD were merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) on 21 June 2010. Some sections were not merged in and the page has been retained for historical reference. The sections left out of the merger are: Categorization, Disambiguation (and all of its subsections), External links, Formatting, Internal links, Neutrality, Notability, Punctuation, Record charts, Spoiler warnings, Sounds and other multimedia, Titles and section headings, Titles (bands), Titles (classical music and opera), and Trivia (including Collectibles). See below for the discussions surrounding this. The rest of the sections are now in the Music MoS. Thank you all for helping me with this mammoth task! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
The source for the article is split across many subpages, most of which are quite small. While the page is somewhat large, it's not too big to edit. Does anyone besides me think the subpage text should be moved back into the article directly? — John Cardinal ( talk) 15:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The following sections of the article do not provide any information that is specific to articles covered by MUSTARD, and they repeat guidelines and instructions that are defined elsewhere. I think they should be deleted.
The following sections are similar, though the instructions have been customized a bit for articles related to music. I don't think the customizations are significant, and I think these sections should also be deleted.
Thoughts? — John Cardinal ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.— Iknow23 ( talk) 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see here — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any set of requirements for when an eponymous category for a musical artist can/should be started? Based on WP:Overcategorization#Eponymous, for artist Foo, having Category:Foo albums and Category:Foo songs, Template:Foo, and Foo discography is not enough, and I have attempted at times to clear those categories for deletion, or with opposition, CFD. For bands/groups who also have the Category:Foo members, I'm more uncertain about as the navigational aid becomes more convenient, yet links for them will still be on the artist's article, so it still may be not necessary. Some older CFDs have deleted these categories when all there is are these pages/templates/categories for the artist, but consensus may be changing. Maybe some kind of minimal requirements can be set up. I'd like to say anything more than the above should permit it, so having categories of image file or concert tours and a list of awards won article might do it. Would it be a good idea to come up with something to put in here or MUSTARD, then there's something to point to as reference in the future? Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw a thread at WT:MOS about capitalization of song titles with parentheses, and I happened to notice that there seems to be an ambiguity elsewhere in 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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long, as well as the word to in infinitives.
Does this mean that the word "to" as part of an English infinitive should be capitalized or not?? I think not, but the sentence is too ambiguous for me to change it without asking! I would suggest splitting the advice into two sentences, as
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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long. The word "to" in infinitives is not capitalized unless it is the first word in the title.
or
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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long. The word "to" is capitalized if it is part of an infinitive but not (unless it is the first word in the title) if it is acting as a preposition.
depending on what is meant! Physchim62 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The first thing that makes me uncomfortable is that this styleguide should be on a completely different page from the Music guideline. Nowadays, I don't think it's wise to draw a black line between genres in such a way; and there's a good deal that applies to both.
I support the audit that is underway of all music styleguides with a view to rationalisation and possible mergers. Tony (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To prevent discussion from fragmenting, I have archived this section. Please participate in the continuing discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Thank you -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 02:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change examples without discussing first on the talk page. The article discusses the capitalization of the word "The", with "The Beatles" as an example, because it is one of the most constested examples, and needs to be in the article. This text:
was replaced with:
For example, "the Pixies" is correct, but "the Pink Floyd" is not, even though some people may say it: the correct name is simply " Pink Floyd".
...which, by the way, is nonsense; the group were officially credited as The Pink Floyd on early releases. The sentence not only looks like fancruft, but uninformed fancruft. (Not to mention that it wikilinks to the band's artice twice.) The editor went on to include an additional sentence:
The definite article should not be capitalised inside a sentence,...
...which completely contradicts the opening sentence which says, depending on the results of research of the band's official name, there are instances where the definite article should be capitalized inside a sentence. Changes have been reverted. If you feel there are problems with this paragraph, or that alternate examples are required, please discuss here first. Thanks. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with. Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a minor point. In the opening paragraph the article explains where the Abbreviation 'MUSTARD' comes from in the following way: "MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs)". This is inconsistent with the Manual of style on capital letters ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms), the page of which is linked directly to this one. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not so have not changed it myself but if accidental it's probably worth fixing seeing as this is manual of style page. Gul e ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently this page was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD to its current title, but somehow it's 5 archives were forgotten. I have moved them along, and you will see that that now reappear in the archives box at the top. However I noted that a few other sub-pages were not moved along, namely:
Should they also be moved along? – Ib Leo (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The name of this page obfuscates its meaning - it has nothing to do with a potent condiment. It should be, say Manual of Style (Music Standards) or some such. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all (and thanks for understanding my situation, also). I think you are both right that anyone that was going to object would have done so by now and there seems to be general agreement that split/merge is the way to deal with this page. No RfC, then? If not, I'll make a start this week -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the above discussions, I will shortly start splitting this page out into the other Music MoS Guides, the Music Notability Guide and a new Music Content Guide. I suggest that rather than losing MUSTARD altogether we mark it as Historical. After all, it has been a major force in WP for a long time.
If any one has objections to this process, please state them now! So far, most comments have been favourable towards a split but there may be factors that have been overlooked.
For those new to this discussion, the rationale for splitting MUSTARD out is rather complex. First, the page was audited a while back by me during the general audit of the MoS. During my audit, I found several issues not least of which was that the page is either redundant to other Guidelines or actually contradicts other Guidelines. Second, the page was recently moved over from WikiProject space to Wikipedia space and renamed according to the new standards decided upon at WT:MOS; the name MUSTARD now stands in relief against the other MoS names (e.g. MOS (music), MOS (biographies) etc) and is now less useful than it was. Third, the page itself is something of an artefact of the times when the guidelines were all being drawn up for the first time and we now need to rationalise the guidance as much as possible.
Each section needs to be discussed in turn as each will need to be first compared against advice found in other Guidelines (to check they are not contradicting each other etc) and second moved (or copied) into a specific guideline. Not all sections will sit happily in the same guideline, hence multiple destinations are proposed; there many be other destinations. Some sections may even be abandoned altogether.
I hope this summary explains what is proposed. If I have left anything out, please don't hesitate to add it below! Thanks all -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we are now in a position to start this. I posted messages in various places a while back: no clear objections have been raised and all the above comments are favourable.
No need to do all of this at once: we just need to start thinking about the issues we will face, for now -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: User:Jubileeclipman/MUSTARD now contains the latest version of MUSTARD. We can use that as suggested to keep tabs on what we have done by striking or deleting sections from that page rather than from the project page. Any other business to attend to that I might have forgotten? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not rushing this split/merge so there is plenty time for us to sort out these issues. However, I see no point at all in copying section over to other Guidelines where these sections are either redundant or even contrary to those other Guidelines. Indeed, there are plenty of other sections that could/should be dropped, IMO. I mentioned Notability (?= WP:MUSIC) and Record charts (?= WP:Record charts), Categorization (?= WP:Categorisation) and Disambiguation(?= Wikipedia:Disambiguation), above as also apparently redundant. I need feedback before I can proceed and cross them of my list, though! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this since I read you post this morning and I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I pretty much said the same above but got cold feet when I came to look at this stuff in the context of the actual split! I'll put this kind of stuff on ice for now and we can debate what to do with it, if anything, after the most important stuff has been merged in elsewhere. I'll post later with a list of sections that I think are redundant (some are listed above, of course) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think everything else can be merged into the Music MoS so I'll go ahead and do that and mark MUSTARD and historical tonight. Then I'll try to make better sense of the new and "improved" (ahem) MOS:MUSIC...! If I spot any other redundancies or inconsistencies, I'll post again; otherwise, I'll post once I have completed this stage of the merge and marked MUSTARD as Historical -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have merged as much as I think necessary into MOS:MUSIC; I have listed the sections not merged in at the top of this talkpage and explained why I left them out in my posts above. If I have left anything unresolved or if any of the above sections should indeed be merged in, please do not hesitate to contact me or leave a post here. Thanks to everyone who has helped, encouraged and advised me through this long process -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with marking the whole of the Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical.
Moving sections to the MoS and deleting them from MUSTARD to avoid duplication is fine, but IMO sections not moved should be left in MUSTARD and not marked as historical. They can be left here for further editing and improvement as necessary. MUSTARD has fulfilled a useful purpose as an all-music project brain-storming forum, so there is no reason to close it down. -- Klein zach 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the 'historical' and added a note about the MoS. Items migrated to the MoS should obviously be removed from MUSTARD. The others should be left for development etc. -- Klein zach 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The 'historical' tag is really for projects, not pages like this one. If MUSTARD is going to be removed/mothballed (or whatever) - and I see PL290 has just marked it as 'historical' again - then that means one of the major reasons for having a Music Project has gone. Hence I am referring this discussion to the main project talk page where it can be seen by more people. -- Klein zach 08:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Following Kleinzach's suggestion that the page be unmarked as Historical and made available for brainstorming, I have attempted to clarify a few sections and make them conform to Policies and the rest of the MoS. I feel it is a futile exercise as I still can't make head nor tail of External Links and other sections just seem to repeat what the other Guidelines and Policies say. Could we just send this back over to WikiProject space and leave it to them to decide how best to deal with it? Is it even a Manual of Style, in fact, given that its sole purpose, now, is to act as a brainstorming tool? It also still has an unhelful name. Another possibility is to rename it as Wikipedia:Music standards and mark it as an essay. Thoughts? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This should be obvious, but all sections that have been moved to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) should be removed from MUSTARD and replaced with links to their new location. (I've done one of these already.) PL290 should remove the 'historical' tag to facilitate this work, rather than obstruct it. -- Klein zach 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the relation of the following guideline to the stylization of band or artist names without spaces, such as 65daysofstatic, Sleepmakeswaves, Alexisonfire, etc.
"Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists" ( Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization)
It seems to me that these should then be 65 Days of Static, Sleep Makes Waves, and Alexis on Fire.
To write these without spaces feels to me to be simply reproducing stylizations and trademarks ( MOS:TM).
But, if so, why should bands such as Coldplay, Slowdive or Deerhunter not be Cold Play, Slow Dive and Deer Hunter?
Is there a distinction to be made on the grounds that the former bands have names that are more grammatical? Wetdogmeat ( talk) 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Note - sections of MUSTARD were merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) on 21 June 2010. Some sections were not merged in and the page has been retained for historical reference. The sections left out of the merger are: Categorization, Disambiguation (and all of its subsections), External links, Formatting, Internal links, Neutrality, Notability, Punctuation, Record charts, Spoiler warnings, Sounds and other multimedia, Titles and section headings, Titles (bands), Titles (classical music and opera), and Trivia (including Collectibles). See below for the discussions surrounding this. The rest of the sections are now in the Music MoS. Thank you all for helping me with this mammoth task! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
The source for the article is split across many subpages, most of which are quite small. While the page is somewhat large, it's not too big to edit. Does anyone besides me think the subpage text should be moved back into the article directly? — John Cardinal ( talk) 15:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The following sections of the article do not provide any information that is specific to articles covered by MUSTARD, and they repeat guidelines and instructions that are defined elsewhere. I think they should be deleted.
The following sections are similar, though the instructions have been customized a bit for articles related to music. I don't think the customizations are significant, and I think these sections should also be deleted.
Thoughts? — John Cardinal ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.— Iknow23 ( talk) 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see here — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any set of requirements for when an eponymous category for a musical artist can/should be started? Based on WP:Overcategorization#Eponymous, for artist Foo, having Category:Foo albums and Category:Foo songs, Template:Foo, and Foo discography is not enough, and I have attempted at times to clear those categories for deletion, or with opposition, CFD. For bands/groups who also have the Category:Foo members, I'm more uncertain about as the navigational aid becomes more convenient, yet links for them will still be on the artist's article, so it still may be not necessary. Some older CFDs have deleted these categories when all there is are these pages/templates/categories for the artist, but consensus may be changing. Maybe some kind of minimal requirements can be set up. I'd like to say anything more than the above should permit it, so having categories of image file or concert tours and a list of awards won article might do it. Would it be a good idea to come up with something to put in here or MUSTARD, then there's something to point to as reference in the future? Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw a thread at WT:MOS about capitalization of song titles with parentheses, and I happened to notice that there seems to be an ambiguity elsewhere in 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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long, as well as the word to in infinitives.
Does this mean that the word "to" as part of an English infinitive should be capitalized or not?? I think not, but the sentence is too ambiguous for me to change it without asking! I would suggest splitting the advice into two sentences, as
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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long. The word "to" in infinitives is not capitalized unless it is the first word in the title.
or
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 coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles, that are less than five letters long. The word "to" is capitalized if it is part of an infinitive but not (unless it is the first word in the title) if it is acting as a preposition.
depending on what is meant! Physchim62 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The first thing that makes me uncomfortable is that this styleguide should be on a completely different page from the Music guideline. Nowadays, I don't think it's wise to draw a black line between genres in such a way; and there's a good deal that applies to both.
I support the audit that is underway of all music styleguides with a view to rationalisation and possible mergers. Tony (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To prevent discussion from fragmenting, I have archived this section. Please participate in the continuing discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Thank you -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 02:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change examples without discussing first on the talk page. The article discusses the capitalization of the word "The", with "The Beatles" as an example, because it is one of the most constested examples, and needs to be in the article. This text:
was replaced with:
For example, "the Pixies" is correct, but "the Pink Floyd" is not, even though some people may say it: the correct name is simply " Pink Floyd".
...which, by the way, is nonsense; the group were officially credited as The Pink Floyd on early releases. The sentence not only looks like fancruft, but uninformed fancruft. (Not to mention that it wikilinks to the band's artice twice.) The editor went on to include an additional sentence:
The definite article should not be capitalised inside a sentence,...
...which completely contradicts the opening sentence which says, depending on the results of research of the band's official name, there are instances where the definite article should be capitalized inside a sentence. Changes have been reverted. If you feel there are problems with this paragraph, or that alternate examples are required, please discuss here first. Thanks. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with. Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a minor point. In the opening paragraph the article explains where the Abbreviation 'MUSTARD' comes from in the following way: "MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs)". This is inconsistent with the Manual of style on capital letters ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms), the page of which is linked directly to this one. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not so have not changed it myself but if accidental it's probably worth fixing seeing as this is manual of style page. Gul e ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently this page was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD to its current title, but somehow it's 5 archives were forgotten. I have moved them along, and you will see that that now reappear in the archives box at the top. However I noted that a few other sub-pages were not moved along, namely:
Should they also be moved along? – Ib Leo (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The name of this page obfuscates its meaning - it has nothing to do with a potent condiment. It should be, say Manual of Style (Music Standards) or some such. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all (and thanks for understanding my situation, also). I think you are both right that anyone that was going to object would have done so by now and there seems to be general agreement that split/merge is the way to deal with this page. No RfC, then? If not, I'll make a start this week -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the above discussions, I will shortly start splitting this page out into the other Music MoS Guides, the Music Notability Guide and a new Music Content Guide. I suggest that rather than losing MUSTARD altogether we mark it as Historical. After all, it has been a major force in WP for a long time.
If any one has objections to this process, please state them now! So far, most comments have been favourable towards a split but there may be factors that have been overlooked.
For those new to this discussion, the rationale for splitting MUSTARD out is rather complex. First, the page was audited a while back by me during the general audit of the MoS. During my audit, I found several issues not least of which was that the page is either redundant to other Guidelines or actually contradicts other Guidelines. Second, the page was recently moved over from WikiProject space to Wikipedia space and renamed according to the new standards decided upon at WT:MOS; the name MUSTARD now stands in relief against the other MoS names (e.g. MOS (music), MOS (biographies) etc) and is now less useful than it was. Third, the page itself is something of an artefact of the times when the guidelines were all being drawn up for the first time and we now need to rationalise the guidance as much as possible.
Each section needs to be discussed in turn as each will need to be first compared against advice found in other Guidelines (to check they are not contradicting each other etc) and second moved (or copied) into a specific guideline. Not all sections will sit happily in the same guideline, hence multiple destinations are proposed; there many be other destinations. Some sections may even be abandoned altogether.
I hope this summary explains what is proposed. If I have left anything out, please don't hesitate to add it below! Thanks all -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we are now in a position to start this. I posted messages in various places a while back: no clear objections have been raised and all the above comments are favourable.
No need to do all of this at once: we just need to start thinking about the issues we will face, for now -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: User:Jubileeclipman/MUSTARD now contains the latest version of MUSTARD. We can use that as suggested to keep tabs on what we have done by striking or deleting sections from that page rather than from the project page. Any other business to attend to that I might have forgotten? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not rushing this split/merge so there is plenty time for us to sort out these issues. However, I see no point at all in copying section over to other Guidelines where these sections are either redundant or even contrary to those other Guidelines. Indeed, there are plenty of other sections that could/should be dropped, IMO. I mentioned Notability (?= WP:MUSIC) and Record charts (?= WP:Record charts), Categorization (?= WP:Categorisation) and Disambiguation(?= Wikipedia:Disambiguation), above as also apparently redundant. I need feedback before I can proceed and cross them of my list, though! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this since I read you post this morning and I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I pretty much said the same above but got cold feet when I came to look at this stuff in the context of the actual split! I'll put this kind of stuff on ice for now and we can debate what to do with it, if anything, after the most important stuff has been merged in elsewhere. I'll post later with a list of sections that I think are redundant (some are listed above, of course) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think everything else can be merged into the Music MoS so I'll go ahead and do that and mark MUSTARD and historical tonight. Then I'll try to make better sense of the new and "improved" (ahem) MOS:MUSIC...! If I spot any other redundancies or inconsistencies, I'll post again; otherwise, I'll post once I have completed this stage of the merge and marked MUSTARD as Historical -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have merged as much as I think necessary into MOS:MUSIC; I have listed the sections not merged in at the top of this talkpage and explained why I left them out in my posts above. If I have left anything unresolved or if any of the above sections should indeed be merged in, please do not hesitate to contact me or leave a post here. Thanks to everyone who has helped, encouraged and advised me through this long process -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with marking the whole of the Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical.
Moving sections to the MoS and deleting them from MUSTARD to avoid duplication is fine, but IMO sections not moved should be left in MUSTARD and not marked as historical. They can be left here for further editing and improvement as necessary. MUSTARD has fulfilled a useful purpose as an all-music project brain-storming forum, so there is no reason to close it down. -- Klein zach 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the 'historical' and added a note about the MoS. Items migrated to the MoS should obviously be removed from MUSTARD. The others should be left for development etc. -- Klein zach 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The 'historical' tag is really for projects, not pages like this one. If MUSTARD is going to be removed/mothballed (or whatever) - and I see PL290 has just marked it as 'historical' again - then that means one of the major reasons for having a Music Project has gone. Hence I am referring this discussion to the main project talk page where it can be seen by more people. -- Klein zach 08:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Following Kleinzach's suggestion that the page be unmarked as Historical and made available for brainstorming, I have attempted to clarify a few sections and make them conform to Policies and the rest of the MoS. I feel it is a futile exercise as I still can't make head nor tail of External Links and other sections just seem to repeat what the other Guidelines and Policies say. Could we just send this back over to WikiProject space and leave it to them to decide how best to deal with it? Is it even a Manual of Style, in fact, given that its sole purpose, now, is to act as a brainstorming tool? It also still has an unhelful name. Another possibility is to rename it as Wikipedia:Music standards and mark it as an essay. Thoughts? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This should be obvious, but all sections that have been moved to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) should be removed from MUSTARD and replaced with links to their new location. (I've done one of these already.) PL290 should remove the 'historical' tag to facilitate this work, rather than obstruct it. -- Klein zach 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the relation of the following guideline to the stylization of band or artist names without spaces, such as 65daysofstatic, Sleepmakeswaves, Alexisonfire, etc.
"Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists" ( Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization)
It seems to me that these should then be 65 Days of Static, Sleep Makes Waves, and Alexis on Fire.
To write these without spaces feels to me to be simply reproducing stylizations and trademarks ( MOS:TM).
But, if so, why should bands such as Coldplay, Slowdive or Deerhunter not be Cold Play, Slow Dive and Deer Hunter?
Is there a distinction to be made on the grounds that the former bands have names that are more grammatical? Wetdogmeat ( talk) 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)