Wikipedia:Manual of Style/MUSTARD/Appraisal

Appraisal of MUSTARD as of 03:16, 17 April 2010 by

]

This "Manual of Style" actually goes way beyond being a styleguide (let alone a Manual of Style) and gives advice on content, notabilty and several other things besides. It should probably be retagged initially to reflect that fact. Ultimately, it should probably be split out into MoS, Content, Notability, etc and each section should be either merged into the relevent guidelines or placed in new pages devoted to the specific forms of guidance. The order is somewhat confused, also, with style guidance followed by content guidance followed by style again etc. The fact that it still resides in Project space is somewhat odd, too, after 4 years of acceptance across the board by all music editors. Time to move up (in what ever manner)? I look at each section in turn.

Abbreviations

• Clear and concise. No apparent problems or inconsistencies.

Capitalization

• Seems to duplicate
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles
  which it points to but which doesn't point here.
  • There are subtle differences, however: "Capitalize every noun, verb, adjective, and adverb." [Bolded word is in MUSTARD but not in MOSCAPS]

• Is this technically a MoS issue?
• The advice appears to apply to all categorisation: "Top-level categories... should not be populated"; "Articles should not generally be in both a category and a subcategory of it". These are true across the board, AFAIK. Is the section necessary?

• Isn't most of this either a rerun of the advice found in
  common sense
  ? Do we really need to go into this much detail?

Popular music

Classical music

Operas

Opera biographies

• Clear but perhaps too wordy.
• "These should be subdivided into... simple systems as required" - you cannot "subdivide into systems": needs to be rewitten.

• This is not technically a MoS issue but rather a Content issue.
• Much of it is garbled and makes little sense
  • "Anything used as a reference, preferably using Template:Cite web, from within the "References" section." - What does this mean? Presumably that the advice applies to the Reflist also? If so, it should be in the lead for this section. Why "preferably using Template:Cite web" when no one else seems to insist on it?

• I rebulleted the middle section so that the colon at the end of 4 and the "or" and the end of the next point make sense in context. However, that whole section doesn't quite make sense:
  • "External pages... should be linked to: #External pages... ;or #Respected databases..." - How does one link a link to a link?
  • "External pages containing information that could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article (posted on the talk page)" - Does this mean that the info is to be posted on the talk page for discussion before being incorporated into the article? Or that it should only be posted on the talkpage? Or that it has been posted on the talkpage and can now be moved over to the article? Or what?
  • "External pages that include significant information that could not be placed on Wikipedia... should be linked to: # External pages containing information that could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article..." - Does "linked to" thus mean "replaced with"? Or "backed up by"? Or "further sourced from"? Or "cited using"?
• There is a ton of confusing info in this section alone that makes the mountainous amount of advice very difficult to follow and apply, assuming people don't just go
  tl;dr
  ...

• Not sure the title of this section is self-explanatory enough for quick navigation.
• Presumably "tours" means "named concerts and series of concerts"? If so, the present word is not inclusive enough. E.g. a classical orchestra might give a named series of concerts without going on "tour" anywhere but rather they play the concerts in their usual venue in their home town. Indeed, often the "touring orchestra" is different to the "regular orchestra" though both give many series of concerts, often with fanciful names like The Romantic's Guide to the Symphony or Brighton Baroque.
• The Generic titles section seems to imply that the word "concerto" should always be written as "Concerto" even if the form is being discussed rather then any specific work.
• Point 5 is made already in
  MOS:MUSIC
  ; does it need to be reiterated here?

• The fair use point, though important, is a Content issue not a MoS issue. It is more or less covered in
  WP:IUP
  . Perhaps we need a new Music Content guide for specific guidance on this topic? (Among others: see this appraisal's lead.)
• "That way the example will be as large as possible..." - does it need to be that large, though...? That image would be intelligible a third of the size even at the highest of resolutions on the smallest of screens, IMO:

• The advice about settings in music notation software is useful; however, this advice, and most of that which follows, would be better placed in an essay entitled How to use music notation software to create music examples for Wikipedia.
• The advice about file types is not really a MoS issue, it is a technical issue.
• Many of the bullet points simply reiterate the Music MOS, e.g. 7 to 9 could just say "see
  MOS:MUSIC#Chords, progressions, and figured bass
  ".

• This guide is all over the place: this section would be better next to External links, surely?
• Each bullet point has a query against it:
  1. This goes against the advice in
     WP:REDLINK
     .
  2. This is stated in higher MoS's and guides and does not need to be restated here, IMO
  3. "...eponymic debut"? Better as "self-titled debut" so people not up with American-Pop-station-speak know what we are talking about.
  4. I am unclear what this is trying to pre-empt.

• Useful advice that probably ought to be made clearer on the pages linked to in the Main header rather than being hidden away in sections like
  WP:SPLIT
  and is also common sense, so it may yet be redundant, anyway.
• The third bullet explains that redlinks and unlinked names are to be avoided "generally" be fails to explain what "generally means. Futhermore,
  redlinks are not evil
  .

• Content, not MoS.

• Section being reviewed
  here

• This section could actually be expanded using the advice issued by WikiProject Opera, among others: Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Article_guidelines.

• Something needs to be said to address the issue of "nationality", since
  MOS:BIO#Opening paragraph
  does not clarify what is meant by that word.

• Much of this appears to go against
  WP:NPOV
  (at least):
  • "Opinions are desirable." What?!?! Other people's opinions, I presume that means, given the request for citations...
  • "If you want to mention whom a band or album sounds similar to..." ...then do so only by quoting a reliable authority's opinion not your own. Obviously.
  • Conversely, "a list of 'related bands'" might be fine, if it is a quotation from a reliable source. Obviously.
• 3 and 4 are both good advice, though the words listed probably should be used judiciously and sparingly, unless used in a direct quote from the source.

• M. o. S. ? + Notability, Content, NPOV... Any more to throw in here?
• Advice goes way beyond describing notability, anyway; indeed, it actually has to include a section on notability!
• Advice is good, though it seems to just reiterate
  WP:MUSIC
  . Anything extra should be in the latter.

• The example isn't helpful as it actually (correctly) places the final period inside the quotemarks! It is also POV...
  • The example, therefore, needs to be changed to something that is more likely to find acceptance in a WP article and use {{
    prettyquote
    }} for clarity. E.g.

“

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", the third song on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, features a tamboura.

”

• The punctionation guidance is already covered by
  WP:TONE
  , among other guidelines, anyway. Not sure we really need to reiterate.

• This mixes styling advice with inclusion advice. E.g. 2 and 3 give the (loose) boundaries for the inclusion of componant charts and retailer charts withpout specifying how those inclusions (if allowed) should be styled.
• The advice seems generally sound however, even if it doesn't all address MoS issues.
• The advice is, in fact, covered by WP:Record charts.

• Sound advice, but only bulletpoint 2 addresses any specific MoS issue.

• Use of these seems to have been severely limited following long RfC discussions in 2006 and as presently explained in
  WP:SW
  . Is this necessary, therefore?

• Good advice but a link to {{
  hs
  }} would, perhaps, be useful.

• Sound advice but most of this is explained in other guidelines.
• "Music genres are not proper nouns." OTOH, define "genre"...
  List of music genres
  (note the redirect)...
  • Today's submission (due 10th April 2020) - Genre. Define in no more than 100 words:

• Self-contradictory: Bands whose names are in the format "X and the As" (e.g. ...
  The Wailers
  ...
• Contradicts the main MoS (
  WP:& and Article titles
  ) on the use of ampersands, "unless the ampersand is an accepted part of a name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer)".
• Used to contradict itself on the use of "the", until recently...

Titles (classical music and opera)

• This is covered in far more depth in
  the Opera Project
  have specific advice concerning opera titles that could either be upmerged here or (along with anything unique in this section of MUSTARD) to that main MoS.

Trivia

• Again, content not MoS
• Define "reasonably expected to be of interest".
• More or less redundant to
  Wikipedia:Trivia sections

Collectibles

Usage

• Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style - er... any specific section? Or all of it?
• Advice is useful but I am not sure these are MoS issues, General styleguide, maybe.

Do those templates actually document MoS issues? Not convinced they do... OTOH, a section on the use (and abuse) of templates might be helpful. We could bring

back in, if we had that, and also address (once and for all in an official document) the objections of classical music article editors to biographic infoboxes, among other things.