Talk:History of music

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, I will present this discussion on the guidelines' talk page. Thank you for your input. Ai777 (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)