Category talk:Transposing instruments

Naming

I'm (obviously) inclined to use plain roman text for these category names, such as Category:Eb instruments, in order to keep things simple. You never know whose browser is going to chuck a fit at an escape sequence in a URL. But a case could be made for using names such as E♭ instruments instead. Interested in other views on this. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unicode sharps and flats cause display issues only. I don't think there is need to worry about URL problems. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) recommends: "Use either Unicode flat (♭, ♭) and sharp (♯, ♯) symbols or the words flat and sharp. Do not use b (the lowercase letter b) for flat or # (the number sign) for sharp, these are semantically incorrect."--Dbolton (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also now been a request at Category talk:Bb instruments and Category talk:Eb instruments to change to the Unicode symbols. The MOS you quote applies to article text, certainly, but I was not sure whether it should be applied to category names. I'd also question whether display issues only means there is no need to worry about URL problems... surely we want the encyclopedia to be as universally accessible as possible?

The other issue I see is that is that category names such as Category:F instruments don't sit easily with me, but neither does the phrase Instruments in B♭, I've always for example just called the normal student clarinet a B♭ instrument not an instrument in B♭. But it would be nice to be consistent. I think we should discuss this issue before making a move, to avoid the possibility of needing to move the categories a second time.

But I'm delighted there's interest in these new categories, and grateful for the input on what to me was not a clear-cut issue at the time, as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no display issues with a written-out "flat" as suggested by User:Badagnani. I am in favor of the format Category:B-flat instruments, etc.--Dbolton (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to this. I had adopted one particular convention mainly to get started, rather than spending time discussing things in which nobody might have been interested.

My main concern now is to get a strong consensus on a well considered convention, so we don't waste time with multiple moves. This proposal has the advantage that categories such as G instruments don't need to change.

Question: Should it be B flat instruments (my preference) or B-flat instruments? My preference is just because it may be a little less troublesome not to have special characters, and seems to cost nothing. But it's not a strong opinion. These are aids to navigation; Whatever gets the greatest number of readers fastest to the information they seek is best IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The hyphen is a standard character and appears on the list of unreserved characters for URIs (see Percent-encoding). (Characters outside of this set [such as parentheses, spaces, etc] are percent encoded). I prefer the hyphenated version since it is a compound modifier, but would be fine with either choice.--Dbolton (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being boring

I'm just back from editing another wiki on which I'm very active, and which is a private one that is used by working musicians, music teachers and young music students. We use the abbreviation Bb all the time... it's a frequent topic of conversation as young players of trumpet, clarinet and tenor sax all need music in that transposition. Why ever would we call it anything else? It's easy to type, unambiguous...

Now let's look again at WP:NC: This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Isn't that exactly what the symbol Bb represents?

OK, this is a category name, not an article name. But surely, that makes the last phrase, making linking to those articles easy and second nature, even more important? Categories are purely aids to web navigation.

I said at the first that I'm happy to go with consensus, and I am. But I did think a bit about it before I did it. IMO the sweeping and unsupportable generalisation A lower-case "b" is not a flat sign, which is the argument presented at Category talk:Bb instruments and Category talk:Eb instruments, is both irrelevant and unhelpful, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you think I'm going over the top with the claim that saying A lower-case "b" is not a flat sign is sweeping and unsupportable, have a look at http://highhopes.com/musicsymbols.html which gives some of the history of the flat symbol. It's a stylised lower-case b. (Trouble is, so are the natural and sharp symbols also stylised versions of the letter B! But we don't need either of them in these categories, fortunately.) Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading WP:NC I noticed it has a preference against abbreviations. All the musical key articles use the long form "sharp" or "flat" (See Category:Musical keys) as do the actual article on flats and sharps. Wikipedia has style guide in place that recommends against the use of #'s and b's for sharps and flats. I think you will find this is standard practice for any encyclopedia (or published work by any major publisher).--Dbolton (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Spelling it out seems the way to go in terms of current practice and policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)