Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/MUSTARD/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sophomore usage (again)

I was surprised to find that the guidelines were changed to allow usage of the word "sophomore" for albums. "Second album" is more understandable to a wide audience, and I don't think the term "sophomore" is likely to be understood by most people outside the U.S. There should be wider community input for this issue, and I don't think allowing "sophomore" reflects the view among most editors. Now I could be wrong, but hopefully this will get a greater response. Spellcast 09:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See #Usage of "sophomore". --PEJL 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of all those sources that use the term. I'm sure there are just as many sources that use the alternate:

• http://www.nme.com/news/lily-allen/29286
• http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/paris%20planning%20second%20album_1038006
• http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/paris+pushing+for+second+album/608357
• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003600157

But the issue isn't how many sources use which word, it's what term is most understandable to a wide audience. I think the term is too "U.S.-centric." (I didn't even know sophomore album meant second until a month or so ago). Spellcast 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point of linking to sophomore. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I still agree with Spellcast, but now that I've gotten the compulsory linking concession, I don't care enough about it to keep arguing about it :), so I'll leave that up to others.

-- TimNelson 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

People may use "second album" just as they use "first album", but again--if you had bothered to read the above discussion--the correct term is "sophomore", just as "debut" as the correct term. It's not U.S.-centric; it's used in Britain, and Australia to a point. And we're linking to it just in case someone doesn't understand. I'm not sure I see your problem. Bouncehoper 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read the above discussion. And using "debut" album is fine because it's a much more common word in english-speaking countries, whereas sophomore doesn't seem to be. Now I don't know how reliable the Wikipedia article on sophomore is, but it does says it's a term used "especially in the USA". It's inherently POV to prefer a phrase more commonly used in one (or few) parts of the world. Spellcast 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The day that it's POV to use the correct term is the day that I'm leaving Wikipedia. That's just plain stupid, no offence. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this guideline has to explain what the word means shows that it's not as common outside the U.S. It's not fair on people who aren't familiar with the word to look it up. I just don't think that preferring a term used more in the U.S. (when a simple alternative that everyone understands can be used) is what you expect from an encyclopedia striving for neutrality. An advanced google search on the Australian Recording Industry Association (aria.com.au) showed no results for "sophomore", but had 10 links for "second album". On the British Phonographic Industry site (bpi.co.uk), a search of "sophomore" returned 2 links and "second album" returned 46 links. On the U.S. RIAA site (riaa.com), "sophomore" had 37 hits and "second album" had 66 hits. I think this shows that the term seems to be more common in the U.S. and so it's bias to use it over "second". Spellcast 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. You go to any science article, say Black Hole or Supermassive Black Hole, and there's millions of "industry jargon" terms. Sophomore is not a jargon term. The fact that it does appear on them should be enough to prove that it is a term that is being used. So what if somebody has to click on a link to make a connection that sophomore just might mean second, like it does in high school. People click links all the time. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "supermassive black hole", "general theory of relativity" etc. is used just as much in other English-speaking places in the world as it is in the U.S. So there's no bias there. Spellcast 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22sophomore+album%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU A google search of only pages from Australia shows a use of 9320 times of the phrase "sophomore album." http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22sophomore+album%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB UK search brings back 27,700 hits. http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22sophomore+album%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIE 698 hits from Google Ireland. The word is used. It's not jargon, as Violask81976 says. It's the correct term, but people don't always use the correct term in any situation. Ok, here's another example: the word "vernacular." It is a real word, but many may not know it. One could say "the common language", "slang of a culture", or "native language" instead. All those would be fundamentally correct, but "vernacular" is the correct term here. If it's used and a person doesn't know it, he/she can look it up. It's more precise, as when writing a paper or speaking to a crowd and searching for that "right" word. This is exactly how it is with "sophomore." Bouncehoper 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that a Google search of "second album" was found a heck of a lot more in those countries. I'm sure you can find many U.S. words in non-American websites, but it doesn't mean it should be used here. It may be "correct" in the U.S. but it's not the most common. Saying "Spring 2007" is correct in many places, but it's not NPOV because it's not Spring everywhere in the world. Instead, you'd say "early 2007" because it's a phrase that's common everywhere. Saying "second album" for sophomore is no different. And that "vernacular" analogy is invalid because the word is probably just as common in the U.S. as it is everywhere. Spellcast 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Spellcast's first point, a Google search of Australian pages only for "second album" yields 82,000 hits, compared to the 9320 for "sophomore album" cited above. The "second album" and "sophomore album" results for the UK and Ireland have even greater disparity — 485,000 for "second album" in the UK, 18,400 in Ireland. Also, I've never before heard or read anyone say that the word sophomore is the "correct" term to use. Extraordinary Machine 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

i didn't forget to mention it because it's irrelevant. the point is, the word is used. you can't claim "it's never been heard of" or whatever. it IS used in other countries. and the point about "vernacular" was NOT that it's used in other countries, but that, while "second album" just like "slang of a culture" are more descriptive, the correct terms are "sophomore album" and "vernacular."

also, MUSTARD does not say "USE THIS TERM OR DIE" or anything like that. it's just saying, "when you use it, link it." if a person doesn't recognize the term (just like any other word on wikipedia), they can click the link and find the definition. it's not hard, it's not brain surgery. it's just one more click.

i'm not sure i understand why this is still an issue. we debated, so like PEJL, i must ask you to please see #Usage of "sophomore". Bouncehoper 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So the debate is over? No. The word is not common outside of the US, and lots of people don't understand it. The word "second" is a direct replacement and should be used where possible. It is not "music industry jargon" - it is just something used on occasion. You try to draw an analogy with black hole? Sorry but a) the jargon there is very widely used throughout the English language, and b) there is no obvious replacement. The use of the word "second" should take priority. This was actually discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard and the consensus was that "sophomore" should not be used in this context. violet/riga (t) 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Sophomore - second albums. --Paul Erik 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that - I couldn't remember when it was and thus which archive it was in. violet/riga (t) 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 29#Category:Albums by number is another discussion about the use of "sophomore" and how it is not appropriate to use. I see this as sufficient reason to change the entry here to actively discourage its usage. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

argh. It is NOT "jargon"; you all seem to keep missing that. I also notice, violetriga, you're one of those who seemed to have a personal vendetta against the word. Why is that? It's just a word, just a word that happens to be used in reference to music. Plain and simple.

Again, the point of the discussion has been missed. The black hole analogy ("analogy" being the key term here, as not every aspect of a metaphor can be stretched to cover the real thing. that's why we USE metaphors) was to show that on any page directed towards an "industry" or subject, there will be terms that are considering the "key terms" or "vocabulary" of the subject of the article. Hence, if one were to look up "black hole", one would indeed find complex science words--"industry words," if you will. The same goes for a page about, say, professional wrestling, with "industry words" about headlocks and the like. Words that, if one were not a common observer of the subject, one might not know. But to those discussing and familiar with the subject, the word makes perfect sense. Do we feel the need to define "half nelson"? No. We link it, because it is the correct term for the manuever, even if a minority may not be aware of the term.

Also, the link you provided is the debate over a CATEGORY-- not the word itself. The category was not kept, fine. Not a big deal. Yet the term is still on wiki, and is linked to all over. So really, the link doesn't prove much. Bouncehoper 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon is terminology, much like slang, that relates to a specific activity, profession or group. Straight from jargon, so please don't try and focus on that point.

Your analogy about the black hole was flawed just as your one about wrestling is. Please tell me a more common word for "headlock" that could replace it. There isn't one and we therefore have no option but to use it. In this case, we have a simpler word that is more universally understood, has less chance of having its meaning confused, and is a direct replacement. If it's "just a word" then you won't mind if we use second instead. As for the category debate, I am very aware of what they were discussing, and it does still add to this debate as several people there explicitly state that that do/did not know the meaning of the word and that it should not be used. violet/riga (t) 07:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it's jargon, then. And now you're just going to seize on that because "jargon" is apparently bad.

I did not make the black hole analogy at first; I just explained it. Neither argument is flawed, just a metaphor. The point was that pages are GOING to use words that are specific to the subject. Just like "sophomore." Music pages could use the word because IT IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD.

Let's see...there must be an analogy you'd get. How about dirge? This is the correct term for what it's describing, but if one wanted to simplify, one could say "funeral song." Just as one could say, "second album." However, if one were wanting to sound informed, one would say "dirge", just as with "sophomore." "Funeral song" may be simpler, more universally understood, less chance of making a person confused, and is a direct replacement. However, it is NOT the correct term; in fact, it is oversimplified. Or unison--one could describe that as "one voice," which would in essence be correct, but not the correct term.

The only reason I was saying it was "just a word" was because of what appears to be your personal grudge against "sophomore." What did it do to you?

As for the category debate, yes, people stated they didn't know the word. Some people don't know the word "dirge." Does that mean the word does not exist? Is not valid? Of course not. It just means they don't know the word. The debate seemed to hinge more on whether creating new categories to sort albums out was necessary, not the validity of the word "sophomore."

And, once more, the guideline isn't saying, "Use 'sophomore' exclusively." It says if it's used, link it. I'm not sure why this is such an issue for you. Bouncehoper 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've now got to the root of the problem. You seem to think that it's an "industry standard" but it's not. It is rarely used outside the US. You have to remember that people outside of the US will be reading this and I'm sorry but the number of people that don't understand the term vastly outweighs the number that do. Since we are supposed to be writing for everybody we should use terminology that the majority understand. There is simply no reason to use "sophomore" when "second" is so much more widely used in such context. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not weighed in so far, but I did provide the reference to the other discussion thinking that it was pretty clear that there was consensus at the Administrator's noticeboard that, if we are appealing to an international audience, that it is best to avoid the use of the term sophomore. I think as well that Spellcast and Extraordinary Machine's searches lend support to violetriga's contention that sophomore is not an "industry standard" outside of the US. --Paul Erik 04:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...but it actually is used outside the US. It really is. And I'm not thinking we're just an American encyclopedia at all. This has nothing to do with that at all. It's music industry lingo wherever you go in English-speaking countries. No, it's not always used as often as "second," but just because people outside the US (and inside as well) don't know the word doesn't mean it's not used and not valid. There are a lot of words out there that aren't heard as much if one doesn't go in that circle. It's not being egotistical, it's not snobbery, it's not elitsm. It's just part of the glossary. I guess not everyone is as involved in the music industry, and that's not to be mean or anything. I'm just saying, it is commonly heard in music circles. Bouncehoper 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your case for its use is not really sufficient, and the majority seem to be in support of using "second" instead. violet/riga (t) 08:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

??? What majority? There's no one here but me, you, and paul erik. Your case isn't that great, either, you know. It IS part of the music lexicon, and you don't seem to see that. You just keep saying that "people don't know the word, so we should use 'second'." People don't know a lot of words. I reiterate that the guidelines just ALLOW the word, not force anyone to use it. Hell, i don't care if people use it at all, but i don't think it should be "outlawed" or "forbidden" from use. We came to a good and calm conclusion that if/when it's used, it should be linked; why is this not satisfactory for you? It's not used on every single music page (you and your buddies made that possible), so again, what's the issue?

#Usage of "sophomore"

Bouncehoper 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about me, too! ^_^

I don't think it's fair to go around removing "Americanisms" from articles without concensus, Violetriga. diff And don't even try to say that there is concensus. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you've forgotten to count an awful lot of people, conveniently not including those on the ANI and CFD pages along with others above (I count five people on this page alone that don't support "sophomore"). I'm amazed that you say that only three people have commented, and amusingly mention "you and your buddies", which proves that you are aware of others that support its removal. violet/riga (t) 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I count seven on here who are just fine with the guideline that way it has been changed. I meant the three of us were the only ones debating at the time, hon. And I am aware of you, Nummer29, JYi, and Pablomismo's vendetta against the word (you'll note User: Nummer29's initial reasoning appears to be that, "This word is annoying me to death." May be true, but not a valid reason.) Pablomismo dubbs it a particularly odious phrase, as though that, too, were justification for wiping a word out of the entire lexicon of Wiki. It's not. Which is why I referred you to our previous discussion where we settled things. Why are you rehashing? Bouncehoper 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that one discussion on a small, hardly-known page can dictate policy. It can't, and discussions are always ongoing. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got it--the word "eponymous". Means "self-titled." A LOT of people don't know that one, but it's still used here (i.e., Jars of Clay (album), and no one's decided it needs to die. Bouncehoper 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that's a word used throughout the English-speaking word. Sophomore is hardly ever used outside the US in relation to anything, even education. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh. You know, it's not really cool to A. change the guideline back when no decision has been made in this discussion yet and B. to stalk me around and change back anything i've done, and comment on my personal stuff. Both are, in fact, quite rude.

You say, "one discussion on a small, hardly-known page can['t] dictate policy." Well, actually, it did! #Usage of "sophomore" if you'll note. Again, no one else seems really that up in arms about it. I don't understand why you're running around changing everything on Wiki to fit your "theory", and then turn around and squawk at ME about being civil? Sheesh. "Sophomore" is, as I've proven, used outside the US; where's your data? And, again, I, the others from the previous discussion, and the guideline aren't screaming for people to use the word. What is wrong with defining it? Isn't that enough of a compromise for you? Define the word, so we don't throw it out? You have no right to throw a word out of the Wikisphere here just because you don't understand it/don't like it.

And if discussion are ongoing (where??? I see no evidence), how in the world can we ever hope to make decisions on Wiki? Do you see how that can be detrimental? If we're constantly rehashing decisions that were already made, we'll spend more time on that than improving the encyclopedia. How is this beneficial for you? Bouncehoper 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion to see where it goes. I'll guess I'll briefly comment now. I can see it from both points of view, and I've actually been here, done this with VioletRiga before, albeit much more brief. I saw that s/he was an admin, thought that meant something more than it does and let it go. I have to say now, however, that I don't see a problem with the usage of the word, particularly if that is the word used in the cited source for a particular sentence/paragraph, as long as it is wikilinked. Such use isn't required, it's simply allowed, which I agree it should be. There's nothing wrong with encouraging others to learn a new word. So I think that either usage should be fine. Lara♥Love 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LaraLove that this solution is fine. Another solution would be analogous to what we do with British and American spellings: use (or perhaps allow) "sophomore" for American albums, but not for the rest of the world. Λυδαcιτγ 01:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. It's nice to not feel all alone out here debating this person. Audacity, would you please protect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Usage page and the Sophomore page? violetriga keeps changing them to his/her standards, and it's quite frustrating. Bouncehoper 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine, but tell me why you prefer the complex/jargon word "sophomore" over the simple/common word "second"? Melsaran 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see above discussion. Obviously, you didn't read it. Bouncehoper 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where you've justified the use of a more complicated, less well known word over the primary school "second". violet/riga (t) 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see above discussion. I don't have time to keep defending myself to you. Bouncehoper 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So your entire argument boils down to "some people use it". More people use and understand "second album" - it's that simple. violet/riga (t) 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect any specific version during an edit war. I did revert back to violetriga's compromise attempt, which is clearly more appropriate for a policy page than the old screed. Bouncehoper, I know you're not happy with it, but let's leave it as is for now.

Here's a paragraph from the main WP:MOS that may be applicable:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

I think that this dispute falls under the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Why don't we adopt that solution? Λυδαcιτγ 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC) . Λυδαcιτγ 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much a question of English variation as how understanable something is. We should avoid words that are not commonplace and known throughout the world if at all possible, and the MOS national varieties guideline is to avoid edit wars between differing spellings of the same word, ie. words that will still be understood but are spelt slightly differently. violet/riga (t) 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, see, I'm ok with this solution. At least it's an outside person, and what he has to say makes sense. I don't really like that it says "avoid where possible", but I'll settle for this. As long as people don't keep playing with it, and no one goes "sophomore kill" crazy all over again, I'm perfectly fine.

The only real problem is that the Wiktionary version has nothing about music on it. Bouncehoper 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Audacity has commented on this several times so is hardly "an outside person", but certainly makes valuable contributions to this discussion. violet/riga (t) 07:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He is in the fact that he's not you or me, or Melsaran. Bouncehoper 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga, I see what you mean, but I'm not surprised at finding, for example, the term hosepipe ban in Whitstable, a FA. It's wikilinked, so I can learn what the sentence means - and learn a new word in the process.

Regardless, Bouncehoper is happy with this, so it looks like this guideline is consensitized :-) Λυδαcιτγ 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any synonym for "hosepipe ban" that would be more widely understood, which is the basis of the argument against "sophomore". violet/riga (t) 07:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the only argument, actually, since that was only part of the explanation metaphor. But, again, this is a compromise, and it works for me.

The Wiktionary entry has been changed. Looks great. Bouncehoper 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So I see, and it confirms why we shouldn't use the word:

"A three year old horse."

Right, so to racing enthusiasts it might suggest "third album". violet/riga (t) 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A sophomore horse is in its second season of racing. Λυδαcιτγ 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the third defintion, you know. The first is the musical one. Racing enthusiasts will see the word "album", realize they're not on a horse page, and be able to figure it out without a problem, unless you're implying that the average is unable to do that, which of course is not true. Bouncehoper 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They will be used to the word meaning "third" and may well expect it to mean so in relation to other things. As shown the "average [reader]" is not capable of summising the meaning of the word as it is etymologically unusual (frequently having an erroneous history) and not common enough. violet/riga (t) 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

VioletRiga, with all due respect, what is an acceptable compromise for you? Or is there not one? Currently, MUSTARD sits with your edits in place. This is an acceptable, though not ideal, compromise for Bouncehoper. For the value of my opinion, I also think the current revisions are appropriate and acceptable. So what needs to be cleared up now is the current options. It appears that it is either 1. No use of the word sophomore ever, or 2. Leave at your current revision and this discussion will continue for the rest of forever. For the sake of time for everyone involved and the load on our respective watchlists, perhaps we can streamline this discussion and get right to it. What is your compromise? Lara♥Love 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

MUSTARD sits with my compromise edits in place and it does not reflect how I would like it to be. Some don't think the word should be used at all while others think it is acceptable and these are the two opposing camps - ie. either it's used in Wikipedia or it's not. These discussions could go on indefinitely and maybe we should have an RfC or suchlike. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NO WAY do we need an RfC for this. Lara, this is the compromise. No one is "happy" with this version, but everyone can live with it - such is the nature of a compromise. Bouncehoper, Lara, Violet and myself are all willing to let this version stay. Further discussion is probably not going to be productive, so let's be done. Λυδαcιτγ 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So is that to say you want to go for option 1 through RfC? If so, please let it be because, as you said, this discussion could go on indefinitely. Lara♥Love 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My own ideal probably sits somewhere close to VioletRiga's, but I am reasonably content with the compromise wording and I agree with Audacity that an RfC is not needed for this. --Paul Erik 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Audacity. We don't need to keep beating the dead horse--no pun intended at all--and what's up will do. There's no reason to completely get rid of the word from Wikipedia; that's just silly. Bouncehoper 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Leave it as is and be done with the discussion. Lara♥Love 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I said that an RfC might be warranted is that it is the next logical step to gain a consensus about this issue. The problem is that this is not a policy but is being viewed as such, and a wider community decision needs to be sought. Perhaps this needs to be changed to form part of the MoS, with others getting on board with the decision-making.

Also, to clarify, I have not commented on the use of "sophomore" when used in relation to education. This is a separate issue and there is no direct replacement for the word outside of the musical context. violet/riga (t) 08:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And a quick note, we all agreed that the guideline states it "should be avoided where possible". Well there isn't a situation where it's impossible to avoid the word. I guess the only time it has to used in music articles is if it's a quote. Spellcast 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really don't agree with that. I didn't realize this was going to be so open and shut. Bouncehoper 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bouncehoper

So we agreed to this compromise? Great, so I go around and remove any unwiki'd appearances "sophomore" and prompty get reverted by Bouncehoper to put the wiktionary link in. I can't see how that's adhering to what we've worked out here. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is just palin stupid. You're going to go through the trouble of removing instances of sopohmore and typing in second instead of adding tw obrackets? That's pressing 17 buttons, at the easiest. INstead of adding two brackets. Then you complain when he does it right instead of you doing it right the first time.

Your really smart, man. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Can I join the insultfest? "My really smart man" what? Or did you mean "You're", by any chance :).

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I should probably remark that Wikipedia:Resolving disputes links ot Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Question -- since when has efficiency of typing been a Wikipedia policy?

It seems to me that the part about sophomore being used "when necessary" was an agreement on words, but not on what they meant. That probably means it needs to be revisited.

(NB: keep in mind that I'd be happy to see sophomore disappear altogether, but if it's being linked, I don't care enough about it to argue or whatever -- I'm just helping guide the dispute resolution process).

-- TimNelson 07:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Throwing insults is always a great way to have your opinion discounted. Bouncehoper is going around reverting my changes which is inappropriate. I'm going through and using this unofficial guideline to remove instances of "sophomore" in the way we agreed. It's also worth noting that the link involves an interwiki and thus isn't merely the double brackets. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

facepalm* Violetriga, I don't understand you. I am doing EXACTLY what was discussed--linking instances, just as agreed. I'm not pushing "my agenda" on anyone. I'm not causing trouble. And you are the one who is still deleting these instances without any other explanation than, "Americanism", which is not true as we have discussed.

You DID NOT just go around and 'correct' anything. You just went to pages that already had the word, and, instead of merely linking it as it says in the MUSTARD section, you just deleted it and called it an "Americanism", as though that were justification. What you SHOULD be doing, as I was doing, is linking it. Or, sheesh, if you must press your opinion on others, at least don't incorrectly label it as an Americanism and confuse those who haven't seen this discussion. YOU are the one creating problems; don't put this on me. I agreed with what was said and have followed to it. You haven't. Bouncehoper 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It specifically says that the word "should be avoided where possible". You are going through and undoing my edits against what it says here and what you agreed to. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm amending it, because you seem to think it's an Americanism. And then you have the gall to block me. "Avoided where possible" does not mean "Delete every instance of it you find." That's what the old guidelines were. What's your reasoning? Mine is, that, if it's originally been typed up as 'sophomore', then why shouldn't we link to it like it says? Bouncehoper 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to avoid it on those articles and if I see it I will remove it. You need to remember that I haven't changed any of the ones that are linked already and merely changed instances when it is not linked at all. violet/riga (t) 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this guideline explicitly says to avoid it where possible. So even if sophomore is linked, if it is possible to change it to second, so be it. Sophomore should only be linked if it is actually necessary such as a quote. Spellcast 06:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says that. But this specific phrasing, "avoid where possible" is what violetriga wrote him/herself. Don't really see how that's fair, but whatever. I don't think people should be discouraged from the word in the music/movie context, though.

Bouncehoper 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But you are one voice against many others that believe "second" to be vastly more appropriate. violet/riga (t) 06:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Broaden your focus, violet/riga. He's not a lone voice. Not even in this rehashed debate that was supposed to be over but won't die. LARA♥LOVE 06:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, but the general consensus is to use "second" and the current wording supports the removal of "sophomore". violet/riga (t) 06:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording was supposed to be a compromise that allowed for the linked inclusion of the word. LARA♥LOVE 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. And some are taking this to the extreme, by completely getting rid of the word anywhere. I don't see what's wrong with linking it in places that it's actually already there--you said yourself people don't know the word, so why shouldn't we clarify? Or is this just another way to eradicate the word? Bouncehoper 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording is to avoid it when possible, thus we should not use it in most situations. Using "second" is clearer than "sophomore", linked or not. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Flashback to pre-consensus. In one of my articles that violet/riga made this change to citing Americanism (and don't throw OWN at me, I say "my" referring to an article for which I am a custodian) the source cited for the particular statement uses sophomore. However, because of violet/riga, the article reads second. As I debated with him/her at the time, it's an American band, so the use of the term seems appropriate, particularly when linked. What's the harm in having readers learn a new word? But what's the point. S/he'll never give up. Compromise is apparently another word for which there is no interest in learning. Lara♥Love 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I definitely thought including the definition on some pages was part of the agreement. Was that a wrong assumption? And I don't see why those pages that already include the word can't be linked, just so it's not completely wiped off Wikipedia. I don't see the point of getting rid of a word from the entire lexicon. What's wrong with learning?

Bouncehoper 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of words not in everyday usage and to have our articles littered with them when a more readily understood and more common word already exists and can directly replace it we should go with the more widely known wording. violet/riga (t) 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not the point. I'm not going to get into the whole thing that it is in everday use for some, because really that's neither here nor there. The original idea of the consensus was to have it in some places, and where it was, to link it so people would understand. Especially if the word was there to begin with. You can't say that, "Oh, it had to be removed because it wasn't linked," because it wouldn't have been linked before the discussion. That's just silly to assume.

Your point is right back to what you first started out saying, like LaraLove pointed out--right back to pre-consensus. You haven't changed your mind at all, and you aren't bothering to compromise. Why? At least I have made some conciliatory responses; I understand that not everyone knows the word, and some prefer 'second' to 'sophomore'. You really need to learn to see from others' points of view.

Again, I ask, because you haven't ever replied to this, what is wrong with linking it? The past two discussions came to that agreement, and you seemed to be ok with it then. Why is linking the word in some places so horrible? Bouncehoper 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's pointless having a link to such a basic concept as "second". You claim that I haven't compromised yet I have left lots of instances of the word where it is linked. When I find it unlinked I'll go along with the wording of MUSTARD and remove it. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be pointless to you, but that was the compromise we came to. Where have you left "lots of instances"? I can't find any, and any time I try to add links you rage through and revert everything I've done. Why?

And again, they're ALL going to be unlinked because they were before, and whenever I attempt to link, you revert. Ergo, there are no instances, unless someone else has been linking them (wouldn't mind seeing that, as that is what the consensus stated), and if this is the case, then you're just reverting my edits to spite me. So which is it? Is there an unknown you're also reverting (which means there aren't "lots of instances") or are you just not reverting anybody's else edits?

Or might you be referring to the phrase, "sophomore slump"? Because that phrase links there, and is not the same. Unless that's what you want--is that more of a compromise? Should we just link instead to "sophomore slump"? That might not work, either, though, since not every sophomore album is a dud.

One more thing--where does it say not to put links in song titles? You continue to revert those edits as well.

Bouncehoper 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Audacity went through many (many!) articles when we reached our compromise and included the link - it would be very easy for me to "fix" these but I haven't because of our compromise. If you find an article with an unlinked "sophomore" then by all means link it - it would then be somewhat remiss of me to remove it given our compromise.

The important thing here is your inability to understand what was agreed and that is that the word should not be used unless we really have to. That means we should not use it in the vast majority of cases.

As for links in song titles it's daft to have a link there. It is confusing to readers who would assume the link is directly related to the song, looks ridiculous, and serves no decent purpose. If we were to link every unusual word we'd be in major trouble! violet/riga (t) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, after posting this you made some edits on this topic that I directly approve of - linking to the word in quotes, and when the title is a play on that word. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's about bloody time you agreed with something I did.

I have honestly not seen ANY articles with the word sophomore pertaining to music, books, or movies in them. NONE. I searched, and all I find are the school related entries, with sophomore in reference to a grade level. The edits Audacity made were also in relation to a grade level; none of them have to do with the entertainment industry.

I understand perfectly well what we agreed to. When we find it, link it. Unfortunately, before this, your crusade went through and wiped out every instance of it. Ergo, there's nothing to fix. Ergo, you win, and the word is not used the way it has been. That's silly, and I don't see how that makes sense/is fair to those of us who know/use the word.

Earlier somewhere in all these discussions, someone mentioned just using the word on American entries. Since you seem so convinced that this is an exclusively American word (even though it's not), would that be a suitable compromise? We could even still link the thing, if you really want. We just won't be bothered to put them in English/Irish/Australian/Scottish entries. Bouncehoper 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what we agreed to as is clearly evidenced by the current wording. As for using the word in American English articles that doesn't avoid the simple fact that it's better to avoid the word and use "second". violet/riga (t) 07:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So don't agree to a compromise when clearly you are not willing to budge an inch and to imply otherwise is boldface lying. You discourage the expansion of vocabulary. Noted. You want it your way and it will be no other way. Just say that. Don't agree to a compromise, then whine about the wording (which is your own), then go back to doing the same changes you've always done. Behavior unbecoming of an admin. Lara♥Love 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The compromise is that I won't go around changing all instances of linked "sophomore" to "second". I'm not whining about the wording just surprised that it is being misunderstood when it is clear exactly what it says. The word should be avoided where possible - how is that not being understood? That is what we agreed. In some cases it is the appropriate word to use, and on those occasions it should (and does) remain, but that is the exception and rarely happens.

Now, can we move away from the name-calling? I'm wondering how it will actually help the situation. violet/riga (t) 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote the name-calling. And nothing will help this situation. Obviously. Lara♥Love 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

US articles

But, violetriga, the reason that what you say is a compromise sounds shaky is that there ARE no linked sophomore entries. They'd all been deleted by the time this whole thing went down. The point here is that the way you see it, it's not really a compromise for those of us who use the word. In fact, it's not a compromise at all. I saw it intially as, if I or someone else links the word sometimes, that's ok. No one's going to freak out and/or revert the changes. I think you see it as, if it's already been linked, you won't change it. But there's no instances of this, so of course there's nothing to change. That's not a substantial give on your part, and a big one on mine. It's uneven.

Again, I put forth an actual compromise--one that, again, I'm not overjoyed about, and one that you might not be, either. (But unfortunate as that is, that's somewhat the idea behind a compromise.) (And I'm not trying to be condescending there, honestly.) May we please just settle that we only use "sophomore" in relation to American books, movies, and music? And, yes, link it to the wiktionary entry? Those outside the U.S. can click the link, just as those who are unfamiliar with, say, a British term would click its link to find the definition. Is there anything wrong with this proposal? I know you think that second is just easier, which it may be, but as I've said before, it is an industry word, and if you don't see it as anything other than an American word, then we can just keep it to initially American pages. I'm not saying that people from other countries won't visit the pages, or that they shouldn't. I'm just saying that, in this compromise, I wouldn't expect to see "sophomore" on Robbie Williams, for example, but it'd be ok to be on Fall Out Boy. Does that make sense? Would this be an ok deal for you? (Because I really would like to solve this thing. I don't want to hold a grudge against you for this crap, because I know you're just as frustrated as I am. I don't want to piss you off or offend you, but I do believe that both sides in a disagreement should have equal give and take.) Bouncehoper 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The AmE/BE/CE/AuE spelling compromise was developed to stop edit wars over regional spelling variations. Spelling variations are still easily understood by every reader and so such a solution has worked well. This is a different case entirely as the word you wish to use is not understood by a vast number of people, and I would indeed go so far as saying that the majority of our readers don't know it. We should avoid words that are not widely recognised if there is a direct replacement. I don't really understand why you have such a need to include the word. violet/riga (t) 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What does spelling have to do with it? What is wrong with my compromise? What is wrong with including a word that is legitimately used a lot? Did you even read what I wrote???

Bouncehoper 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. I responded to the fuller picture about a similar compromise that has previously been mentioned. I also explained why the compromise isn't really something that I think solves the problem. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the spelling compromise is NOT what I said. I know you're trying to parallel the two, but it's not really the same. No one's gone around and gotten rid of instances of "colour" instead of "color", or vice versa. And to make a comparison to my compromise, I would EXPECT the word "colour" in a British article, and "color" in an American.

Why wouldn't that solve the problem? Especially since, as evident from your retitle, you think this is an Americanism? Yes, Americans know the word. Maybe more so than others. So, what's wrong with using it, ESPECIALLY if it's linked? You keep saying you don't think that will work because it's too complicated, but it's not. You say it's not widely recognized, but it is; again, especially by Americans. What's wrong with using it on pages about books/music/movies made by Americans? Why is that a bad thing? Again, most Americans know the word. If it doesn't mess with any international pages, why is there a problem? And if someone who IS from another country, and DOESN'T know the word sees it, they can click the link.

Why isn't this a good compromise? Because as I see it, those who agree with me get cheated the way it is now. Like I said before, that's not a compromise. I don't plan on running around fixing every single page on Wikipedia (because, frankly, I have better things to do), but I want to know that I can use the word in future situations without having to worry about you changing every single instance. Bouncehoper 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

People have gone around changing "colour" to "color", but that's a tangent. Right, so Americans know the word? Well not all of them, and the majority of people that read this wiki are not American (arguable, but suffice to say that millions of people don't know what the word means). Not surprisingly non-Americans will actually want to read articles about American bands and artists, so your suggestion doesn't really work. violet/riga (t) 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, those that go around changing spelling like that are ignorant. No, not EVERY SINGLE American knows the word; not EVERY SINGLE American knows everything about everything. No generalizations there. In fact, you've said yourself, "You are quoting policies that are used in spelling disputes, not acceptable wordage." [1], and you're right; spelling has really nothing to do with this. We're not debating over the spelling of "sophomore."

I know people who aren't American will read the articles. I've said before I know that, and I don't think they should be stopped from doing so. In fact, if they're interested in the subject, all the better. But if for instance, I went to, say, an Irish article, I wouldn't expect to know EVERY SINGLE term. BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. That's the nice part about diversity; everyone uses different ways of saying things. Or, I speak German, ok? If I toddled over to the German Wikipedia and ran across a phrase I didn't know, I would look it up or hopefully if it's there, click the link. (For instance, "sich aalen". Aal is an eel, so one might think the verb was saying "to eel oneself." But when looked up, it means "to stretch oneself out [most likely as an eel would].) I wouldn't expect the Germans to change it to "sich ausdehnen", which would be the formal way of it, or change it myself. I wouldn't expect an Aussie-focused article to have American terms. So if you truly believe it's an American term, then you wouldn't have any problem with it being on American pages. I'd expect British pages to have the word "loo", and not "the john" or "the crapper" just because some American didn't understand "loo".

Is it an American thing? I mean, crap, I don't even like the country every day.

Bouncehoper 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You see, I'd expect "toilet" and not "loo", "john", or "crapper" to avoid problems and to use an encyclopaedic tone. We should always try and avoid country-specific words and words that are in infrequent circulation. If I found an "Irish-ism" in, for example, Ronan Keating I'd change it to something more universally understood. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Happening upon this discussion from god-knows-where... Strikes me as very odd. Why on earth does anyone want to insist on using the obscure jargon word "sophomore" when "second album" is clearer and easier to understand? I actually had to look up "sophomore" - I thought it was something to do with American universities. I have honestly never heard it used in relation to albums before! English is my first language, but not American English. Please use common sense, and adopt terminology which actually means something to most of the readers! Snalwibma 07:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by my example. I'm sorry I use examples that don't stretch in the way you'd like. I'm just trying to draw a parallel.

And Snalwibma, when you're "happening upon a discussion" of which you have no prior knowledge, it would behoove you to at least read what's been said before. And I'm not sure I appreciate being told to "use common sense." All I'm saying is it's a legitimately used word in the music industry--which I have proven ad nauseum-- so I don't see why it shouldn't be used. Violetriga insists it's an Americanism. Fine. Whatever. Apparently it's not used in Wales. Fine. I don't see why, if it's linked, it can't at least sometimes be used in American articles. Let me be specific: THIS IS THE WORD WE USE IN AMERICA. Oops, sorry sorry, does that mean I'm being America-centric? Well, I'm not trying to be. EVERYONE adapts when they read about a different country; why should America be different? Bouncehoper 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people use it. More people don't understand the word. More people use the word "second". violet/riga (t) 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bouncehoper. Sorry if I offend! I did read the previous discussion, and then deliberately inserted a "naive" comment, trying to tell-it-how-it-looks from that viewpoint - but certainly not aimed at you, or at anyone in particular. Just making the point that "sophomore" really is virtually unheard of here (England). FWIW I have just tried out the word on a bunch of teenagers who are more music-savvy than me, and I have been met be a row of blank looks. Snalwibma 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh. so yeah, still no real conclusion here. unfortunately i've been off in the real world lately. most people do understand the word; i don't have time to find all the links again. teenagers don't know everything. the word should be used in american articles, but you're not understanding that, so whatever. Bouncehoper 06:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Understanding" is different to "disagreeing". violet/riga (t) 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

this discussion can use some fresh input, so:

• second is just as correct as sophomore.
• it will be immediately clear to everyone what 'second' means which cannot be said about 'sophomore' (i add my voice to those who said it before: prior to reading this discussion i had no idea what the word meant)
• there is no such thing as a US article, the english wikip. is universal and should be as accessible to everyone who uses it.
• it is not about what you or i use but about what everyone understands.
• wikipedia is not about learning new words, it is about getting clear and understandable information.

as spellcast said somewhere above: bar where it is used in a direct quote there isn't really any occasion where sophomore cannot be avoided and as such it should not be used in most cases (and that is not because there is something wrong with it, but simply because 'second' is a much better alternative). --L!nus 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Is there any sort of standard for awards sections? Lara♥Love 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So I'm taking that as a "no". Lara♥Love 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So if there is no standard, can we create one now? Lara♥Love 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the format of the tables at Beyoncé awards and nominations#Music ... Still, I would support the idea of flexibility in how an awards section is presented, since there is such a range of needs, depending on numbers of awards, wins versus nominations, varying notability of awards, and likely other factors. As things stand, some are included in the musician's main article, but some are ferried out to a separate list. Some are listed by year (List of Whitney Houston awards), some alphabetically (List of 50 Cent awards and nominations), some by category of award, and then each with various subdivisions. Some are simply summarized rather than listed (Gordon Lightfoot#Honours). What ideas did you have for a standard? --Paul Erik 05:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I guess I'm having issues with what to include, rather than how to include it. Although I like the first example. I brought Maroon 5 and Fall Out Boy to GA without nominations included in the award section. I don't see the point in including noms. However, they've been added by someone else today. Additionally, I hate the way the awards section looks in the FOB article. I think it would be good to have some sort of standardization. Lara♥Love 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"It's an honour just to be nominated." It does seem to be common practice around here to include nominations, although admittedly I am partial to your decision to remove nominations for MTV Video Awards. In general, though, I do not see it as unreasonable to see an award nomination as an achievement in and of itself, and thus worthy of inclusion. --Paul Erik 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maroon 5, for example, has no less than 25 nominations for everything from the Grammy Awards to Teen Choice. And with that in mind, is there any standard to what awards should be included? Notability issues and such. And in what order? It all just seems haphazzard. I feel like I should include the Grammy noms, but it seems wrong to include only those when all wins are included. I think there should be a consistency one way or the other. I just don't know what would be most encyclopedic. Lara♥Love 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this discussion, just waiting to see if others have any strong preferences about this. It would be useful to have a list of music awards that are regularly reported in secondary sources, with external links to searchable databases, similar to what Reaper X set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications. As to the order, if it is a long list I prefer to see them listed alphabetically by award and then subsectioned by year—for example, I like List of 50 Cent awards and nominations better than List of Whitney Houston awards. If it is a short list, I think it might be fine to have it worked out at the individual article level. And should we include just wins? I have the same feeling that you do about including Grammy nominations and also that it seems wrong then not to include others (but I do tend to be perhaps a little too much of a fan of inclusiveness). When a list gets excessive, then it ought to be moved to a separate list page, which might be an option with the Maroon 5 list if nominations were included. Either way, I think editors should be encouraged to summarize the most notable achievements within the article body, but it is difficult to be specific about that guidance. Oh, one more thing: I think note should be made that there is too much boldfacing going on in these lists. Just a few thoughts, --Paul Erik 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Music videos

What is the correct formatting for the titles of music videos (as in videos for songs). "Quotes" or Italics? Bit unsure because songs are in quotes but films are in italics. I think the answer to this question should be added to the guidelines. - kollision 12:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think it should be more like songs, since it usually is effectively just the name of the song. (In fact, how many videos actually have proper titles, as opposed to simply being referred to as 'the video for "song X"'?) But since this page just reflects what the Manual of Style says, it might be more productive to ask on the relevant Manual of Style page. Xtifr _tälk 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Standards for crediting band members

I came here looking for guidance on how to band membership listings should be handled. In particular, if a band is no longer active and had membership changes throughout its existence, should all musicians be listed as "Members" or "Former members"? Should the final lineup of the band be "Members" and previous lineups be "Former members"? Clconway 15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard is to list everyone as "Former members", as has been done in featured articles The Supremes and The KLF for example. --Paul Erik 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I infer from these that the infobox should not include data ranges of membership and that members' joining and quitting should be handled in the text? Don't you think this is worth formalizing in the guidelines? Clconway 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It already is. Template:Infobox musical artist#Fields says "with no other notation than names". --PEJL 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But Template:Infobox musical artist is not linked from this article. And using/not using the infobox is not addressed! Clconway 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this page (WP:MUSTARD) is intended to be about music articles in general, not musician articles specifically, that's what WP:MUSICIAN is for, and the latter does link to Template:Infobox musical artist. --PEJL 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But there's no link to WP:MUSICIAN either! I'm only pointing this out as somebody who, in good faith, wanted to help clean up a band article and utterly failed to find the guidelines I was looking for... Clconway 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, and there is no link to WP:ALBUM, WP:SONG, WP:CHART and so on. I find that acceptable as most users won't come directly to this page when looking for guidelines for one of those articles. That said, I think many of these guidelines could use some work. --PEJL 13:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

If a solo artist is also part of a group/band, is it necessary to put group recordings made by that solo artist in the discography? For example, Ice Cube is a member of the rap groups N.W.A. and Westside Connection. In Ice Cube discography, is it necessary to list his collaborations with those groups? Perhaps it's better to just restrict the recordings to his solo stuff? Afterall, there's seperate pages for NWA and Westside Connection discographies. Most discographies I see list all collaboration albums by solo artists despite there being seperate pages for them. Spellcast 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for separation. There was much discussion about this many months back, as Beyonce, Kelly Rowland, LeToya Luckett, etc. had Destiny's Child stuff in the solo discography pages, which is really redundant. I certainly wouldn't attempt to duplicate the Beatles discography into, say, Paul McCartney's discography page - seems kinda silly. - eo 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Beyonce, LeToya etc. discographies don't mention the albums made by Destiny's Child. It ruins the point of having Destiny's Child discography. Ideally, discographies should mention collaborations in the intro (see Gwen Stefani discography for example) or if necessary, a "see also" section. There should be a standard for this. What was the consensus like months back? Half wanting removal, other half wanting info merged? Spellcast 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The DC stuff is not included in Beyonce, etc. pages because several editors (including myself) said it was redundant and unnecessary. There was a bit of a revolt, but only by the rabid DC fans who insisted it should ALL be there. A wikilink to the DC discography is in each of the individual's pages, which seems much more reasonable. - eo 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a legitimate reason why collabos should be included, something along these lines should be added to the standard: "If a solo artist is also part of an ensemble, it is recommended that the group work be kept in a separate discography page". The wording could use some improvement, but hey it's a start. Spellcast 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually never mind. There's usually no resistance when I remove group work. But what about solo templates in the external links such as Destiny's Child#External links? Spellcast 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) More than two or three navboxes at the bottom of a page seems like overkill, hence I'd recommend to do it the other way around, including the band template in the article's of individual members and just the band template in the band article. And yes, band work belongs on band discography pages. For an example of how I usually approach these things, see Hide (musician). - Cyrus XIII 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a discography and navigation box official guidelines.--Tasc0 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos

I'm having an issue with the Fall Out Boy logo. There are two available, which can be seen here, and I don't know which is more appropriate to use. The first one is the logo on their most recent CD as well as the logo used on their official website and myspace page. The second is similar to their old logo, however is being used on promotional items for their tour. I believe the first should be used, but the uploader of both images believes the second should be. Rather than revert back and fourth forever, I would like to gain some consensus on this. As you can see from the talk page link above, there has been no response to my question there. LaraLove 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are no strict rules for band logos. However, there are strict rules for copyrighted images and logos in general, see WP:LOGO and WP:FU.

In this case I feel no image should be used. I think a band logo should be strongly associated with the band (like Metallica's logo) and not just some text used on one of their album covers. Because Fall Out Boy have not used one uniform logo style throughout their career I think these logos are not strongly associated with the band. It seems the logo is there for decoration, not for visual identification. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't consider that. Thank you. LaraLove 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)