Talk:History of music

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of music article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 2 months

History of music is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 24, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former featured article candidate

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 3 January 2022 for a period of one week.

Should we get rid of the gallery for 1 image in the lead?

A gallery tends to have a ton of useless images that don't contribute much to the article's quality. Should we ditch them all together? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, images are useful. Many people read only the lead, and images can help to grasp the width of the subject.

Artem.G (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I'm assuming that most people would agree that the entry title, "History of Music", is sufficient for the short description as per the short description guidelines Erp (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion. While I understand the concern that the title might already explain the article's topic, a concise description adds value for several reasons:

1. Accessibility and context: Descriptions provide immediate context for readers, especially when articles are listed in categories, viewed on mobile, or accessed through external tools. This is particularly helpful for readers unfamiliar with the subject.

2. Consistency: Many articles with similarly clear titles include short descriptions. For example: History of Painting: The development of painting from prehistoric times to the modern era.

These articles show that even when a title is self-explanatory, descriptions are often included for consistency and clarity. Removing the description from History of Music could create inconsistency, particularly within the history section.

3. Alignment with guidelines: Wikipedia guidelines encourage concise descriptions. Adding a short description ensures clarity and consistency across similar articles.

In light of these points, I propose keeping the description for History of Music ("The development of music from prehistoric times to modern times"). It aligns with the standard for similar articles and enhances accessibility without redundancy. Ai777 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Painting's short description was "Historical development of painting" and not what you stated. Also that description was redundant with the entry title so I've changed it to 'none'. Just because other articles have redundant or excessive short descriptions does not mean all article should. Instead the other articles should be corrected. Consider "A short description should never be the same as the article's title. If the primary purposes of a short description are entirely met by the title wording, that is a good indication that "none" would be appropriate." Erp (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and for quoting the guideline. I understand the concern about redundancy and the purpose of short descriptions. However, I’d like to suggest a slightly broader interpretation of the guideline in this case.

While it’s true that short descriptions should not repeat the title, they are also meant to provide additional clarity or utility for navigation. In cases like *History of Music, the title identifies the subject but doesn’t fully explain its scope or coverage. For example, the description "The development of music from prehistoric times to modern times" clarifies that the article addresses the chronological evolution of music, which isn’t explicitly stated in the title.

Additionally, removing all such descriptions risks inconsistency with articles which retain their descriptions. If we believe descriptions like these are redundant, we should ensure this is handled uniformly across Wikipedia rather than treating individual cases in isolation. This would maintain consistency and usability across similar topics.

I propose either keeping the description for *History of Music* or discussing a broader approach to align related articles under the guideline. This way, we can resolve not just this case but ensure a more consistent application of the policy across Wikipedia. Ai777 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The broader approach should be brought up in the guidelines talk page. Note also the emphasis on short; ideally under 40 characters including spaces since many apps using the short description will truncate to that; however, that isn't a hard limit if absolutely necessary to exceed. The entry Prehistoric music is a case for a different short description since "prehistoric" can mean different things in English and, in this case means "pre-literate societies" not pre any literate societies. There is little ambiguity with the words "history of music". Erp (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]