This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Music page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 183 days
![]() |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Standards page were merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (21 June 2010) |
Hi, I've started a discussion over on WP:UNITS about the Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length, if anyone has opinions and would like to discuss. Cheers — Jon ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
16′ pedal stop) for organ stops and wind instruments? — Jon ( talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Considering the recent topic above (eight-foot pitch notation for organ stops), there is no discussion here in the MOS about pitch, which is pretty fundamental. Consensus in the literature seems to be orbiting around
scientific pitch notation, which follows the note letter with a number for the octave, usually as a subscript (e.g. middle C = C₄) but sometimes a regular number (C4) or superscript (C⁴) is used. I'm not proposing we settle on which of those to use, as long as one of them is used, just recommending it over the many (and there are many!) older systems due to its simplicity and increasingly common use. Additionally, I think we should at least mention in passing, or make an allowance for, the use of
eight-foot pitch notation where appropriate too, which would be when discussing organ stops, or technical
organology topics like wind instrument air columns, lengths of keyboard strings, etc. This notation is standard for describing organ stops (e.g. 2′ flute stop
) and an exception has been made on
MOS:FOOT to allow for this usage. —
Jon (
talk)
04:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
C<sub>4</sub>
or C{{sub|4}}
-> C4). I would suggest not to use the Unicode character U+2084 ₄ SUBSCRIPT FOUR. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
06:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Re MOS:THEBAND, it doesn't really say much about disambiguators, e.g. "(Beatles song)" vs "(the Beatles song)" vs "(The Beatles song)". We decided some years ago to use "(Beatles song)", as in All Together Now (Beatles song), yet had a lot of pushback (all my changes were undone) 5 years ago when trying to do similarly for things like Mama Said (The Shirelles song) or I Luv U (The Ordinary Boys song) or Meanwhile (The Moody Blues song). Is there any appetite for trying to be more consistent about such things? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to have become standard on Wikipedia to trade semantic and historical accuracy of song and album titles for hard-line notions of "grammatical correctness". I just want it to be know that this is biasing Wikipedia against meaning conveyed through stylizations and that it makes it less accurate and less useful for scholarship and historical study. It is also completely inconsistent with how consumers might see and find works. For example, many poems and songs use all lowercase with some uppercase letters to spell out words. By removing stylizations, you are deliberately erasing conveyed meaning from the title. This goes for every single artistic work, including poetry and music. A few others on Wikipedia, like @ Livelikemusic seem to call the use of stylizations "fan-driven"; this reasoning is biased and to me would go against Wikipedia's neutrality. If you want to be for or against stylizations, you have to have logical reasons for doing so. Anything else would not be neutral at all. In my opinion, there are no logical reasons for going against stylizations, but there are plenty of logical reasons to take them into account, some of which I've already discussed above. Krixano ( talk) 04:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Assuming this is the right place to mention this. I'm sort of curious since I've seen it on some articles but not on others; why do Personnel lists on some albums use '''
to separate personnel instead of ====
? I went to check this page to see if it was a MOS thing, but it appears to not be, so I'm stumped.
Neo Purgatorio (
talk)
18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
===
instead, there would be 16 additional headers and the TOC would be longer than the infobox. In cases like this, I find preservation of space to be preferable. There is also the option of {{
TOC limit}}, but I wouldn't use it in that article because it could interfere with other level 3 headings that I/other editors may want to apply later as they become relevant. As for a guideline, I think
MOS:PSEUDOHEAD does a good job of getting this across already.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
04:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)