Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23

Category:Trills

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Trills to Category:Trill consonants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Trill is ambiguous. I suggest renaming to match trill consonant. See also related nomination below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Upcoming singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Upcoming singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the
music notability guideline, one important requirement for songs to be included into this encyclopedia is that they need to chart on a national or significant chart. To chart, the songs must be released. Therefore, in the original idea of the guideline, this category should not exist. If this category is deleted, I think it should be protected against recreation. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Images lacking a description

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to
Drilnoth's more precise proposal has not been objected to in the two weeks since it was made. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming Category:Images lacking a description to Category:Media lacking a description
Nominator's rationale: Makes sense, as it's not just images that are here. Acather96 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with nom. As sound and video files can also be listed here, media seems to make the most sense.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to
    T • C • L) 14:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Operatic singer cats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Separate categories may be the best next step forward. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Operatic tenors to Category:Classical tenors
Propose renaming Category:Operatic sopranos to Category:Classical sopranos
Propose renaming Category:Operatic mezzo-sopranos to Category:Classical mezzo-sopranos
Propose renaming Category:Operatic contraltos to Category:Classical contraltos
Propose renaming Category:Operatic basses to Category:Classical basses
Propose renaming Category:Operatic bass-baritones to Category:Classical bass-baritones
Propose renaming Category:Operatic baritones to Category:Classical baritones
Propose merging Category:Operatic countertenors to Category:Countertenors
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if I am nominating these articles correctly, so forgive me for any error in advance. Based on this discussion at WP:WikiProject Opera I would like to propose renaming all the operatic voice type categories to the more generic label of classical singers by voice type. (ie. Category:Operatic sopranos becomes Category:Classical sopranos and Category:Operatic baritones becomes Category:Classical baritones etc.). The reason for this is that all of the singers already in these cats are classical singers but not all of them are opera singers. Several of the performers in these categories have not sung in operas, but have made their careers performing the concert literature with orchestras and in recital. Likewise, many of these performers have had equally important careers performing with orchestras in concerts in addition to their work on the opera stage. The term "classical" would therefore be a more accurate description than "operatic" for all of the various singers lumped together in these cats. We already have opera singers by nationality to categorize opera singers and I think creating the category "Classical sopranos" with the category "Operatic sopranos" becoming a sub-cat of that would be over-categorization. Re-naming is the best option. The one cat which should be treated differently is Category:Operatic countertenors. Since there is no such thing as a non-classical countertenor, I would suggest simply merging the Category:Operatic countertenors into Category:Countertenors. Many of the singers in Category:Countertenors are opera singers anyway, and so this was really over-categorization to begin with. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most opera singers also sing on the concert stage, so it is generally sensible to expand the scope of the categories as suggested above. Plus, as noted above, the category would cover singers who sing classical music either in concert or on recordings and have no category at present. A very good suggestion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, dealing with many classical singers who sing opera only sometimes or never, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehemently disagree To blur the distinction between operatic and classical singers is to lose essential information. There are many singers who are classified as classical singers who are incapable of singing in a full opera, either because of stamina, stage ability or skill. There's a huge difference between the two categories. Nobody who knows much about opera would define the "classical singers" (and they are all defined as such) Paul Potts, Andrea Bocelli, Charlotte Church, Katherine Jenkins etc, ecc, usw, as an opera singer. At least Katherine Jenkins has no doubt about the difference -- she's apparently taking a sabbatical of a couple of years to train up from being a "classical singer" to become an "opera singer". Will her years of training and effort be worthless .. why should she be classified in the same way at the end of her training as at the start of it? Scarabocchio (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the logic of your arguement (although I too am not a "popera" fan). Many of the singers you listed above are already in the operatic voice type cats and have been for a long time. However, the vast majority of artists we are referring to are not popera singers. Most are artists like Marian Anderson who primarily sang on the concert stage, or singers like Ruth Holton who do not perform opera at all but have a career performing classical vocal music. There are many classical singers with legit technique which do not perform opera. Likewise most opera singers also perform the classical concert repertoire regularly. The technique used to sing Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Verdi's Requiem is no different than the technique used to sing Fidelio or Aida. All classical music, opera or otherwise, requires the same amount of skill and training. Why make a false seperation between the two in the category system when most singers perform both professionally? Why exclude the few singers who do not perform opera but appear regularly with major symphony orchestras and other important classical ensembles? Best,4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the infoboxes Potts, Church and Jenkins are all defined as classical and none of them are defined as operatic (as we would/ should expect). Bocelli has sung in a full length opera, in a 'proper' opera house and has received the worst, stinking reviews that you can possibly imagine (actually, probably worse). Leaving aside the toxic problem of the poperatic singers, what is the problem with leaving two separate categories, those who do (can) sing opera (on stage) and those who can (do) sing classical? There's a difference, and it's an important one. Scarabocchio (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stage techniques necessary for Beethoven 9 or the Verdi Requiem are light years from the those needed by Fidelio or Aida. Some can do it, others not. Some voices are small that they are excellent in recording studios, but catastrophic on any but the smallest stages. For an entertaining description of some of the difficulties of the transition between the classical and the operatic was an article by the Hilliard Ensemble ("For most of us with no operatic experience, there's been a lot to learn. Singing or speaking at the same time as moving and using props was quite a challenge. Simple things, such as not walking at the same pace as what you are singing, takes a bit of getting used to"). Rest of it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/27/classicalmusicandopera.theatre Scarabocchio (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The vast majority of the concert repertoire in classical vocal music is performed the same way opera is (ie live with no microphones in large concert halls like Carnegie Hall etc.). Why lump the numerous concert artists throughout history like Anderson who performed unamplified vocal music over orchestras like the New York Philharmonic and the London Symphony Orchestra with hacks like Charlotte Church. You are equating classical music with crossover which is just ridiculous. Further, some of the most difficult music ever written for the voice is from the concert repertoire. Also, I can't think of a single major opera singer who didn't perform concert works as well with some regularity. 4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .. we seem to be arguing at cross purposes here .. I am against your proposal precisely because your proposal would lump [insert name of your operatic god/goddess here] into the same category as Ms Church etc. Church, Potts etc ARE defined in WP as classical singers. I believe that it would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to put trained opera singers capable of acting and singing over a period of hours into the same categories as these people. I am therefore against your proposal. Scarabocchio (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scarabocchio, you do realize that opera singers still have their own cats in Category:Opera singers by nationality. There still will be a way to categorize opera singers seperately. You also realize that opera is a form of classical music and therefore opera singers are classical singers. Categories are not about fitting people into our own elitist boxes, they are meant to be a tool to aid reasearch (like a card catelog system in an old school library). Best,4meter4 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Category:Operatic tenors etc. have been a coherent, useful, unproblematic, well-defined set. Combined with Category:Opera singers by nationality, they obviate undesirable multiple-attribute, deep categorization. We should keep them. Moreover the use of 'classical' in Category:Classical tenors is ambiguous. (We've been through this n-times before.) Nothing is preventing the creation of specific new categories for concert singers, Lieder singers etc. --Kleinzach 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm. I can see both sides here. The nom is rather odd, as most of the parents, like Category:Tenors contain nothing except subcats for Opera foo and Foo by nationality. The only exceptions are sopranos and Category:Countertenors, which contain several non-classical singers, yet this last is the only one where a merge is proposed - why? The nominator is clearly talking nonsense when he says "there is no such thing as a non-classical countertenor", and appears not to have examined the actual contents at all - mostly they are like Lloyd (singer), an R&B artist. On the other hand there appear to be no non-classical basses categorized as such. It might be more logical to merge all the other cats & rename these two - if a change is needed, which I'm not convinced of. I'm tending to support the opposers. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I likewise can see both sides. Neither the current situation nor proposed changes are ideal. "Category:Operatic foo" is a voice type (sub)classification rather than an occupation or even repertorire. If I recall the original discussions correctly, it was intended to mean a classically trained voice capable of projecting in a concert hall or opera house without amplification. As such, the singers who specialise exclusively in oratorio or as solists in classical choral works have essentially the same type of voice. On the other hand, you have the word "opera(atic)" which also connotes to most people a repertoire. I would say that perhaps if folks are uneasy classifying these singers as "operatic foo", it may be best to simply classify them by voice type/repertoire, i.e. "classical foo" and leave it at that. OK, so they're going to get lumped in with a few singers like Katherine Jenkins and Paul Potts who couldn't sing in the Messiah or Beethoven's 9th to save their souls, but I don't know if upmerging is the answer here. Voceditenore (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the original thinking might have been, the pages are now highly explicit in their requirement for stage work. Category:Operatic_tenors: "Operatic tenors are men who sing (or sang) tenor roles in operas for opera companies in opera houses". It's a tight, well defined group with clear entry requirements, so no Tino Rossi. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a footnote, I would happily support Voceditenore's suggestion for "Category: Classical foo", as a penumbral catch-all for the singers who do not match one or more of the "in operas","for opera companies" or "in opera houses" criteria. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on balance, especially given the current specifications for the "Operatic foo" categories. It doesn't seem right to upmerge all these long-standing cats simply because there are a few singers who don't quite fit into them and don't have anywhere else to go at the moment apart from the voice type by nationality, which lumps them in with singers like Celine Dion etc.. The problem originally came up when a lot of biographies were being written about Bach specialists. While it's true that there are a small number of oratorio/choral/lieder specialists who may never have sung in an opera, most of them have done so on occasion. Even so, a separate "Category: Classical foo" may be the way to go for these. It would also help with early music specialists in general like Emma Kirkby whose voice production and timbre aren't your standard "operatic". Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The West Wing (TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The West Wing (TV series) to Category:The West Wing
Nominator's rationale: Per The West Wing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the title of the article itself is not disambiguated, I see no reason that the category should be either.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ambiguity is more detrimental in cat titles than in article titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggested title is ambiguous, since "The West Wing" is named after "The West Wing", which on Wikipedia is addressed by the article West Wing, but is frequently called The West Wing out in the world. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - simpler is better and the likelihood that there will be a slew of, or indeed any, articles about topics related to the actual West Wing of the White House is minimal, much less that categorizing such improbable articles will cause reader confusion. Put a note in this category directing people interested in the physical West Wing to the article West Wing. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the main article. Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. because of ambiguity. --Kleinzach 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2004 MMORPGs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2004 MMORPGs to Category:MMORPGs by year
Nominator's rationale:
™ 05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, as the creator of the category you'd be the one to ask, how many MMORPGs are going to be in this category? 1? 5? Making it into a single list on one page would make it easy to navigate and laid out in a way that makes sense. -
™ 04:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
hmmm, but then the parent category would still be way too big. I think we need to start to use some sub-categories. I think that the quantity in each sub-category is not a relevant issue. the main issue is the overall category system as applied and utilized here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quantity in each sub-category is a complete relevant issue. There's no point in having a "category" with one entry. -
™ 19:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
oh, ok. to answer your question, each and every sub-category will have at least 9 or 10 items at the very least, and most sub-cats will have much more. MMORPGs have only existed for a few years. there are 325 in the main category, so most sub-cats will have a large numbers of MMORPGs in them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given the MMORPG phenomenon is relatively recent, the fact that 325 articles are in the main category on them suggests that we could easily see a useful number of articles in each year category. My recommendation would be for the individual articles to be removed from Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games and placed in the appropriate year categories. At any rate, a single level upmerge would not be useful, as "Category:MMORPGs by year would be nonsensical without subcats by year. Resolute 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GEC

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GEC to Category:General Electric Company plc
Nominator's rationale: Rename.
General Electric Company plc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Clicks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Clicks to Category:Click consonants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Click is ambiguous. I suggest renaming this to match the main article click consonant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (category creator). I don't particularly mind one way or another, but I doubt that an ambiguity exists in practice. There is no other "click" as a semantic category which could be a plausible target for
No such user (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that's like saying the category Category:Madonna would be OK because there is no other music category that would be called that except for one that referred to the American singer. Unfortunately, category names do not self-declare their topical area. I would think that should be Category:Trill consonants. see above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that
No such user (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You haven't heard Mary (mother of Jesus) referred to as "Madonna"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have, but it is not her primary designation. That we disambiguate in articles does not necessarily mean that we should disambiguate in categories. I would even argue that
No such user (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
To me it makes much more sense to have the article name and the category name correspond. That's why Category:Madonna is a disambiguation category, because Madonna is a disambiguation article. Otherwise, you're just increasing the likelihood of confusion and making subjective decisions about what sorts of ambiguity are plausible independent of the very same decisions that have been made with respect to the article name. There is no need to re-invent the wheel and have the same discussions twice, in other words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - clearly ambiguous as well as being unnecessarily obfuscatory. Why make people have to figure out what kind of clicks this is for? Harley Hudson (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Unclear name.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Magazine (band)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles 21:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Magazine songs to Category:Magazine (band) songs
Propose renaming Category:Magazine albums to Category:Magazine (band) albums
Propose renaming Category:Magazine members to Category:Magazine (band) members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest disambiguating these categories to use Magazine (band) to match the article and to reduce confusion, since the band is not the primary meaning of Magazine and the word is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my rationale at
No such user (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not quite that simple. "Magazine songs" could mean "songs about magazines"; "Magazine albums" could mean albums named "Magazine", such as this one or that one; and so forth. This is why we have naming conventions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. the term "magazine" is much too broad. we need to add a word to make the meaning more specific, as per nom. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Medland & Taylor Churches

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 21:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Medland & Taylor Churches to Category:Medland & Taylor buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no reason to limit this category to churches, since presumably this architectural firms designed buildings that were not churches. This is the standard naming format for subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at Barbadoes Street Cemetery, Christchurch

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 21:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Burials at Barbadoes Street Cemetery, Christchurch to Category:Burials at Barbadoes Street Cemetery
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Barbadoes Street Cemetery and a general lack of other cemeteries of this name (and yes, it is Barbadoes, not Barbados!) Grutness...wha? 00:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Consistent and sensible. Ephebi (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_23&oldid=1074807967"