Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] Verb agreement for bands (is vs. are)
This has been brought up a couple times before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_4#.22is.22_versus_.22are.2C.22_regarding_band_names here] and here - I'm surprised there aren't more), but there never really seemed to be wide consensus. I'd really like to push for one and add it here or to WP:MUSTARD. The question is whether a band should be treated as a singular entity or as separate members. This is mainly in regard to whether one would say, for example, "The Flaming Lips are an American rock band" or "The Flaming Lips is an American rock band". My opinion is that it should almost always be treated as a single entity; saying something like "the band are going to dinner" seems odd, and "the group are going to dinner" seems flat-out wrong. I think there could be exceptions when it's clear from context that a sentence refers to each member acting individually, where the phrase "the members of..." is implied, but the standard should be that the group is a unit. Thoughts? Torc2 12:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
I created a section on images Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Images. Hyacinth (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the article: "Music images should be displayed in thumbnails to the right (or staggered right and left if frequent) side of the page if small, such as an image of a chord, or displayed in thumbnails on the left or center of the page at 550px for visibility if large."
- I generally agree with concept (small images on right, big images on the left), but I wonder if these directions are broader than the scope of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). Maybe there is another manual of style that can better address this.--Dbolton (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- On second thoughts I wonder if it is a good idea to include this at all. I can think of a several instances where it makes more sense to have a specific (small) image appear on the left instead of the right (see Modern musical symbols) or even in-text (see Template:Music--Dbolton (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Italian plurals
I am interested to know why it was decided that all plurals of Italian terms should be anglicised - especially when there is an exception. I have never in my life heard anyone talk in a rehearsal about tempos rather than tempi. Concerti might seem a bit precious, but it is in constant usuage. I look forward to seeing a reference to Allegros' setting of Psalm 51 Almost-instinct (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
PS is this a US/UK usage issue? Almost-instinct (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's more likely and ignorance usage issue. How many people like to use "song" to mean any musical composition, even when talking about a fully instrumental symphony? I imagine similar problems here. I agree that outside concertos (which I've seen enough times like that, that it could probably have the status of loanword) they should be changed when you come across them. Perhaps even if someone could program a bot, or at least use AWB... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the rule just needs scrapping, as there are so many exceptions. Of the three examples given in the style guide
- a. cellos is right and celli wrong
- b. concertos is perhaps preferable to concerti, but no more (and perhaps not, anyway)
- c. tempi reflects usage far better than tempos
- This issue could prove to be endless in a truly dismal fashion... Almost-instinct (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody seems interested in disagreeing with me, so I'll going to amend this rule Almost-instinct 11:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the guide based on Writing About Music: A Style Sheet from the Editors of 19th-Century Music. I don't think anyone really pays attention to this, though. There was not much interest or discussion when I first wrote it, so consider it a draft. – flamurai (t) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
