Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization

Session musicians

Shouldn't there be a category for session musicians? (That page could use some attention from someone with more knowledge than me, BTW). --EngineerScotty 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort keys

I'll be honest, I'm a little unconvinced about using sort keys different from the actual category title, i.e. "Cello" for "Canadian cellists". This is partly because the categories I just sorted were already using the name of the instrumentalist rather than the name of the instrument, and partly because I find it a little misleading to sort "singers" under V for "vocals" rather than S. I mean, where is the average Wikipedia user going to look first?

Of course, I haven't managed to find any official guidelines for this. (Partly because I don't know what kind of heading to look for.) I'll let that be the last word, as soon as I can find it. –Unint 02:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there are guidelines yet, that's kind of what this project is for. However, if you can find some pre-existing guidelines, that would be useful. I'm personally not really all that invested in whether we use "Cello" or "Cellist". I initially went with the "Cellist" pattern because most of the categories I had come across were using that pattern. I'm sure both are pretty prevalent in existing categories, and all-in-all, it probably doesn't matter much since most of the time they'd end up being sorted in the same place anyway since they'll usually share a number of letters in the beginning of the word ( e.g., both start with "Cell" and it's unlikely that anything else in that category would be sorted between "Cellist" and "Cello"). The only apprehension I have in switching is that--if it doesn't matter that much--I don't see a good reason to change since it would require resorting all the categories that have already been "officially sorted" by the project (see /Progress).

As far as whether to sort singers under "S" for singer or "V" for vocals, I initially went with Vocals because I ran across it a few times in existing categories, but I definitely think we should discuss which is of more use, "S" or "V", and I'm totally open, I don't really have an opinion on it. I also think it's a bit of a special case, and doesn't neccessarily have to match the others.

B.Mearns ^*, KSC 12:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, personally I have not been very consistent with the sort keys for the categories that I have "officially" sorted. Particularly, I left existing sort keys alone, as long as the word had the right root. If we want to make another sweep to standarize them, now would be the time, while the list is still small.

As for what the guideline should be... I'm of the opinion that we should strive to use words from the category name, verbatim, since this would require the least human judgment and so would allow for the most consistency. (Actually, despite that, I tried to implement some "invisible" sort keys recently. It really didn't work out.)

Also, there was a recent CfD for Category:R&B vocalists here. I proposed rename to "R&B singers", but there was no consensus, and the closing admin suggested that subcategories ought to match the supercategory. Personally, I'm not sure if there is anything to the semantics of the words that would mean that not all "vocalists" could be described as "singers", but if you have anything to raise regarding that then I hope you'll bring it to the table when we do a CfR for some of these next time. (The question is for which ones, of course.) –Unint 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's music

I just ran across Category:Canadian children's musicians. There are currently no other categories for children's musicians sorted by nationality or anything else, really. Category:Children's musicians itself is very sparse. Shall we integrate children's music as a genre here? (Well, technically I already did it halfway...) –Unint 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me, I think children's music is appropriate as a genre. Any other opinions on this matter? B.Mearns ^*, KSC 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock

The categories for punk rock are currently inconsistent. The current structure:

Category:Punk rock musicians

So, there's a disagreement between "punk" and "punk rock" shown in the current scheme, but at least one subcategorization seems to be placing "punk rock" as a subcategory of "punk". Meanwhile, "punk rock" is the title of the main article for the music section of the punk article. "Punk music" also redirects to "punk rock".

The bottom line is that I strongly suggest we rename some of these categories. I cannot offer to do it, however, since I don't know anything about the music in question. –Unint 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for where it's written, but I know I've come across a wikipedia guideline that defines "Punk rock" as the musical genre, and "Punk" as a person/culture; meaning these should all use Punk rock. I think that's a pretty fair guideline to use; are there any other thoughts on this? B.Mearns ^*, KSC 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dance artists by country"

Have a look: Category:Dance artists by country. Category:Canadian dance music artists is at least well-populated, if mistitled according to our guidelines, but all the remaining categories are worse as they are improperly capitalized and mostly empty. What's more, it seems that "dance artists" is a label that doesn't work well with the current Wikipedia categorization scheme: it's subcategorized into Category:Dance music, which is dedicated to various forms of electronic dance music. This is then placed in Category:Dance, which is dedicated to traditional forms of dance: social, ballroom, and such. (I'll be taking this up with WikiProject Music genres soon.) I really have no idea what to do with this, right now. –Unint 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenre categories

So I noticed there's some kind of strange categories like Category:Electronic musicians by genre. This is strange to me because "Electronic" in this case, is the genre. I understand it's supposed be by sub-genre, but in that case, shouldn't the category be "Electronic musicians by subgenre"? Is it even neccessary? I just assumed, for instance, that Category:Techno musicians would just be a direct sub-category of Category:Electronic musicians, as well as a sub-cat of Category:Musicians by genre. I'm not sure how many other categories there are like this, but I think we should define some guidelines for how to handle it. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to try to bridge the gap here. This was created by the creator of WikiProject Electronic music as part of early categorization efforts (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Categorization), which have since petered off since the creator in question has disappeared and no one seems to have really taken charge since.

Anyway, I'm going to integrate the relevant parts of our category structure into theirs, in the hopes that someone will pick up the other end of the line eventually. However, I still couldn't say what to do with "musicians by genre", save to say that I haven't been able to find an equivalent for the other genres I've looked at so far. Or maybe I'm missing something. –Unint 19:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers

I would like to see a category for noted teachers (pedagogues) -- Some musicians are very prominent as performers, while others are primarily known as teachers. In particular, I would very much like to see a subcategory under, say, the classical violinists category, for prominent violin teachers. Someone like Dorothy DeLay or Ivan Galamian would fit here, whereas, say, Joshua Bell would be better known as a performer. Does anyone else think this would be useful, or should this be a subcategory under the music education category instead of the musician category?J Lorraine 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorting bands named after people

I came across the article on The Dave Brubeck Quartet, and noticed that its categorization sort keys were listed as "Dave Brubeck Quartet, The". IMO, bands named after people should be sorted by the person's last name (that's how I've seen it done elsewhere). I changed that article to use "Brubeck Quartet, The Dave", but I think it might be worthwhile to document this style on the front page here, since apparently, it's not as obvious as I might have hoped. (And if anyone disagrees with me about sorting this way, I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.) Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the naming convention. The main page really needs some organization, but if you can find a place for it now, go for it. Otherwise I am going to try to reorganize the page in the next couple of days (don't hold me to that though). – Heave n's Wrath ^Talk 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"state" musicians

There is an entire, existing heirarchy of "American musicians by state", a subcategory of "American musicians". And a similar heirarchy for "Musical groups by state". There's even a few categories of musicians from specific cities (e.g. Chicago, New Orleans). Since it's general Wikipedia policy to push articles as far down in a category heirarchy as possible, and since the "American musicians" and "American musical groups" are both categories with too many entries which need constant weeding, I think it would be good to mention the state subcategories on the main page here, in order to increase awareness of them. Xtifr _tälk 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup: there also seem to be musician categories for at least some of the Canadian provinces (possibly all, I haven't checked). Then there's the whole "British" vs. "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Cornish" mess, which seems to be somewhat contentious. Help, mommy, I'm scared! :) Seriously, though, I do think it would be good to at least mention the existence of sub-national categories, to encourage people to look for and use them. Even if we don't get too specific. Xtifr _tälk 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one responsible for most of the less-populated Canadian provincial ones, and yeah, I probably should have worked that into this page at the time. However, I balked more or less upon considering the rewriting that would be necessary (including an understanding of geographical regions for the more convoluted contries).

FWIW, the Canadian ones seem to be working out. (I only excluded the Northwest Territories after checking every biographical article from that region manually.) However, I'm not at all sure how much people check this page... –Unint 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians by band

Just in case people are interested, I've begun filling out category:Musicians by band. Along the way, I'm making sure musicians have categories like "American rock guitarists" and the like. Feel free to participate if you desire.--Mike Selinker 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Popular' category descriptions.

Hi,

The WP:PipeOrgan team are attempting to clean-up the Category:Organists and various sub-cats. One such category is Category:Popular organists. As this suggests some POV, we were wondering what to rename it. Do you have any conventions? Is the convention Category:Pop organists or perhaps Non-classical organists? Can you suggest something for us?

Thanks,

MDCollins (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was "popular music organists", as the general antithesis of classical, but that gets no Google hits at all. "Pop organist" at least has some hits, but it might be conflated with pop music itself. I notice that Category:Popular music does not really have a corresponding artists category, but rather artist categories for more specific genres; however, you're working with so few articles that this really isn't feasible (save for the already existing Category:Jazz organists.

Maybe Categories for discussion could work out a suitable name if you nominate it with the destination name open for discussion. (I'm assuming you have all the resident organist experts within your project already?) –Unint 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - it is a new project, so there may be more experts around the place somewhere! I'll bring it up at CfD, thanks MDCollins (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for someone to double-check my efforts, please

Having recently discovered the categorization guidelines, I've tried to put them into practice at Category:Oboists, which until I started had all the articles in the main category with no sub-categories. I think that I've correctly understood about Level 2 / Level 3, N I and G categories, but I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look to check that I've got the right number of categories linked to each other in the right way! I'm also part-way through Category:Harpists (a few national sub-categories before I started) and Category:Violists (top-level category only before I started) and so pointing out any mistakes I've made in the Oboists section would save me going wrong there as well... Thanks, Bencherlite 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Deletion discussion

Note that one of the issues raised in this discussion is the extent to which language categories should be subdividable by gender, and that this may be an appropriate forum for that broader discussion. We are having a similar discussion at Category:Women writers as a result, in part, of several CfD proceedings. A Musing 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines

The categorization guidelines currently require the following (using American pianists as an example):

Category:American pianists - which is a sub-category of Category:American musicians by instrument and Category:Pianists by nationality
Category:American pianists by genre which is a sub-category of Category:American pianists corrected
Category:American classical pianists which is a sub-category of Category:American classical musicians by instrument, Category:American pianists by genre and Category:Classical pianists by nationality (and similarly for other genres)

My proposal is to revise the categorization guidelines to eliminate Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre i.e. the second of these levels, Category:American pianists by genre, so that Category:American classical pianists is a direct sub-category of Category:American pianists.

My reason for doing so is that this intermediate level of categorization is unnecessary. It is a sub-category of only one category, and so nothing is lost by removing it. All it does, in reality, is provide an extra level to create and thereafter click through to reach the names in the various genre sub-categories. No information would be lost by upmerging the category in this way, and the category tree would be easier to navigate.

The instinctive reactions of others not involved with this Wikiproject may be instructive:one admin [1] upmerged Category:Australian classical pianists to Category:Australian pianists and deleted Category:Australian pianists by genre on the grounds of the redundancy of the intermediate category (although he undid his actions when the WP Musicians categorization guidelines were pointed out).

A list, possibly incomplete, of categories that would be upmerged if my suggestion was approved is at User:Bencherlite/list of (nationality) (instrument) by genre categories. Feel free to add any that I have missed. I would welcome thoughts and comments, especially if there is some purpose to the category level that I've missed! Bencherlite 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why omit "(nationality) (instrument) by genre" and not "(genre) (instrument) by nationality" or "(nationality) (genre) by instrument"? The current structure is symmetrical—why should we make it asymmetric in this way? I think that would be unnecessarily confusing. And have you looked at Category:Musicians by genre? There are a lot of genres there which could be populated at the "(nationality) (instrument)" level. Just because we have some (ok a lot of) not-yet-well-populated by-genre categories is not, IMO, a reason to throw them out. They should get populated. And if we dump them all in the "(nationality) (instrument)" categories, they'll be hard to distinguish from non-genre categories that may get created, such as Category:Australian female pianists, or Category:Australian aboriginal pianists or Category:Blind Australian pianists or whatnot. Perhaps some of those would be considered overcategorization, but some might not, and if we keep the by-genre categories separate, it makes life easier, simpler, and less confusing, IMO. Xtifr _tälk 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical pianists by nationality stays as it is a child of two parents (Category:Pianists by nationality and Category:Classical pianists), so it does perform a useful function in the structure. Category:American classical musicians by instrument is a child of only one parent, I agree, Category:American classical musicians - I'm inclined to say that that level, though, does keep the parent category tidier, as there are a lot of instruments in it and it helps differentiate them from the other sub-categories. However, I don't see why symmetry, of itself, should be a reason for keeping a category level.

Your best points are the last two (we haven't finished/it keeps them clear from non-genre categories). I think my answer is the same for both: I think your fears are unwarranted and the parent categories are unlikely to be swamped by loads of genre sub-categories and / or non-genre sub-categories. I don't know if there are any real, rather than red, examples of non-genre categories out there. If problems arise in future, then perhaps this level of sub-category would be useful; in the meantime, perhaps not. Thanks, Bencherlite 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I should have said earlier: the "by genre" level won't be used to hold articles that couldn't equally well (or better) fit at a higher or lower level. Bencherlite 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example simply shows an error in the existing categories, not the schema. I'm not entirely sure which cat is in error (this guideline could be more clear), but either Category:Classical pianists by nationality should not be a child of Category:Pianists by nationality or Category:American classical musicians by instrument should be a child of both Category:American classical musicians and Category:American musicians by instrument. I believe the former (one parent for pre-order cats) is correct, but in any case, the category structure is clearly intended to be homogenous. As for non-redlinked non-genre categories, see Category:American singers for some examples. But I think my argument about consistency and homogeneity is still the strongest one. The three top-level categories, Category:Musicians by nationality, Category:Musicians by instrument and Category:Musicians by genre should be subdivided evenly into a consistent ~~tree~~ graph; this is clearly the intent of the admittedly sometimes-opaque guideline here. Adding special instructions to "omit third-level pre-order cats only in the by-genre branch" of the graph would be WP:CREEP and would make this guideline even more confusing than it already is. In my opinion. Basically, I think the advantages (consistency, simplicity, ease of navigation and avoiding instruction creep) outweigh the disadvantages (having to cite WP:MUSCAT at CfD or review). Am I overlooking anything?

p.s. I link to WP:MUSCAT in my edit summaries when creating categories, to help avoid misunderstandings. Xtifr _tälk 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately chose American classical pianists as my example as this is the example used by the guidelines, so if that example is wrongly categorized, oh dear! I hadn't seen Category:American singers by style before (non-standard category name) and see your point, although it's very much the exceptional situation. My thought at present is that I'd like to take this to CfD in a while anyway, not so much because I fervently believe that this level should go but because I've created 90% of the categories on the list I made (159 out of 179) and I don't want to create another 150 before CfD says I've wasted my time! Bencherlite 11:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that singers-by-style is explicitly mentioned as part of this standard, and has been since before I got here. And you hadn't noticed it. Do you see why I'm worried about making this scheme even more complicated and difficult to explain than it already is? My objections do not stem from a love of the by-genre categories. Maybe if you could make a draft of what you think the policy should look like, incorporating your suggestion, then we'd all be in a better position to evaluate the idea. Make sure you mention that we should have Category:Singers by style rather than Category:Singers by genre, but that we don't want to have Category:(nationality) singers by style or Category:(nationality) singers by genre, though we do want to have Category:(nationality) (genre) singers just as we have other Category:(nationality) (genre) (instrumentalists). If you can explain all that and everything else in this scheme without making my brain hurt, I'll be a lot more inclined to agree. :) Xtifr _tälk 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen at some stage in the past the note about "Singers by style"; however, I didn't think to mention it for two reasons. Firstly, virtually all my categorization efforts have been of instrumentalists rather than of singers, so I've not had to deal with that part of the structure; secondly, when I generated my list offline, I created a table using Category:Musicians by instrument and Category:Musicians by nationality and genre to see which permutations of nationality/instrument "by genre" came up as redlinks or bluelinks. "(Nationality) singers by genre" came up only as redlinks, (apart from Category:Australian singers by genre, created by someone else before this guidance was written, and the absence of other singers passed me by, I confess, other than perhaps as part of the general thought that (as we both know) there's still a lot of work to do in categorizing musicians properly. However, "singers by style" is said to be a pre-existing standard, not to be affected by this guidance, so I'll respect that: I'm not proposing we change the scheme for singers that obviously predated this guidance, and certainly not suggesting a rename to "Singers by genre". If I'd gone around creating "Singers by genre" categories, it would be fair to say that I hadn't read the standard properly (though I'm not reading your remarks as being a criticism along those lines - clearly I've read it as I've created the bulk of the categories that would be affected!). Either others don't know about, or don't follow, the guidance, or this guidance predates those parts of the category tree that could include "nat instr by genre" categories but don't.

I'll have a go at creating a draft, but I would hope that it wouldn't be more complicated than the one that previously exists - after all, I'm suggesting removing a level, not adding one. I won't be able to do a draft until late in the week, probably. I'll then give you a chance to explain/suggest what the higher level categories should be, in the light of your disagreement with the structure above American classical pianists - although I think it is good as it is as it enables an easy link between "Pianists by nationality" and "(genre) pianists" by nationality. (Incidentally, Category:Pianists by style, which predates this guidance, might need a name-change...) Bencherlite 14:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. It would help eliminate a lot of categories that only contain subcategories.--Mike Selinker 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a counterproposal, which I think addresses the underlying issue, but doesn't result in the confusing imbalance of this proposal. Since it's a new proposal, and since this section is already quite long, I'm listing it in a new section below. Xtifr _tälk 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

male and female singers

Does anyone else think it's silly that we characterize singers by gender? Style makes sense, and vocal range makes sense, but what is there that distinguishes male and female singers? Is there anything that connects Maria Callas, Wendy O. Williams, and Beyoncé Knowles?--Mike Selinker 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 November 11#Singers_by_gender ended up as a "keep" decision. Unless consensus has changed since then (and I've not been on WP:CFD for long enough to get a feel for that) it would seem to be an established exception to the general principle at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations not to genderize categories, presumably on the basis that "gender has a specific relation to the topic". However, I'd certainly agree with a clear-out of Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers to more specific sub-cats of nationality etc. Plus, we have Category:Female singers by voice type, which is incomplete anyway, but not Category:Male singers by voice type. Do we need that too? Bencherlite 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven months is long enough to try again. But folks here would have to think it's a good idea.--Mike Selinker 17:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not part of this schema, and I don't believe they should be, but aside from that, I'm fairly neutral. I think that the "voice type" categories come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, and should probably be discussed there. And any broad nomination of these categories should probably be posted to the main project talk page, for the benefit of those members who don't have this subpage on their watchlist. But personally, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus may arise. Xtifr _tälk 03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

making third-level "pre-order" cats optional

Instead of creating a special rule for the deepest level of "by genre" categories, why not make all three of the "by genre", "by instrument" and "by nationality" cats optional? Because frankly, if you look through the existing structure, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that they are optional! Wikipedia:Overcategorization suggests three as a minimum number of members for small categories, so we could even recommend not making a "by X" category unless there's at least three existing subcategories that would fit. The best part is I think this is actually how people would expect this schema to work if they weren't familiar with it. Does this appeal to anyone else as much as it appeals to me? Xtifr _tälk 09:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, interesting - I'll have a think. (Thinking aloud without prejudice to what I come up with in a draft in due course!) I agree that there is something to be said for being flexible e.g. the situation that arises at Category:American singers by style as you pointed out could in theory arise elsewhere in instrumentalists as further categories and articles are added. If so, then the intermediate category level has a role; if not, I don't think so, so perhaps it can be left out for now unless/until it is needed. On the other side of the picture, we have Category:Flugelhorn players as an example of a cat with very few members in the top level which might look silly if sub-divided by genre/nationality - although it would be within guidelines as part of a pre-existing structure and you'd otherwise not include e.g. flugalhorn players who come from Argentina within any Argentine music structure apart from "Argentine musicians", which would be a bit awkward. A further example might be Category:Harpsichordists as unless and until we find a jazz/rock/pop/hip-hop harpsichordists, can we just structure the tree so that they're all sub-cats of the relevant "classical musicians by nationality" page?

Come what may, I'd like a consensus-approved redraft of the explanation of the guidelines - I don't think we need to be told that the system uses pre-order cats at three levels, etc. I look forward to working with you on this one later in the week perhaps, Xtifr. Bencherlite 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In support of the pre-order cats, I'll point out that it can make it easier to find less-appropriate categories by gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference or other generally trivial intersections (Australian rock singer-politicians, African-American actor/rappers, etc.). In support of making them optional, I'll point out that it's usually not harder to spot the less-appropriate categories unless there are already a lot of subcategories. :) Xtifr _tälk 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New draft of the categorization guidelines open for discussion

As requested / promised, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization/draft. Anyone who wants to comment on these proposals is very welcome to do so. Please note that some sections have stayed the same from the existing page, whilst others have been rewritten. Even if you think that there should be no change to the policy, comments and criticism on whether my version is an improvement in explaining the guidelines is strongly encouraged. I have tried to make them more "user-friendly" for those adding categories to articles and for those creating the categories to support them. Fix typos, formatting as you will; other discussion under this heading for now, I suggest. Bencherlite 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a first quick look, I like some things about it, but I'm not so sure about others. I don't really like the "gold", "silver" and "bronze" labeling scheme. I can see why you did it, and it was definitely worth trying, but I think that introducing this new nomenclature may simply muddy the waters. But I very much like the idea of introducing the most-specific categories first. That, I think, is a major improvement. I'll try to provide more feedback (probably on its talk page) once I have a chance to study it more closely. Pretty good for a first stab, though. Xtifr _tälk 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the gold, silver and bronze names, in my view it makes clearer the level wanted for the category scheme. I was fine following it until 1a and 1b (the intermediate gold-silver cats) where it didn't seem clear why the different approaches were necessary, but then it's late and skim reading. Thought I'd let you know that I like the draft though, well done. –MDCollins (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the bit where most work is needed, firstly in finding consensus(!) secondly in expressing it. I'm not opposed to the intermediate gold/silver level categories (or pre-order third categories, I think it's called in the current guidelines) per se, but think we only need them if they're useful - e.g. "classical musicians by instrument" keeps the instruments out of the way of "conductors", "opera singers" and the like and is there A Good Thing; see above for my views on "Fooian cellists by genre" types. I'm glad you like gold, silver and bronze - I thought the image of working every article to the gold standard of classification was an improvement on the current prose about first, second and third order categories. We'll see what others think - no rush to change anything just yet. Bencherlite 22:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music categories up for deletion

FYI. Bencherlite 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Euro-jazz musicians

Category:Euro-jazz musicians has been created and needs to be dealt with. In the discussion here, the author has stated "It is really no different from, say, Category:American jazz musicians. It is a loose term, and should ideally become the parent category for all European jazz musicians. If someone would like to change the name to European jazz musicians, I don't care really ... I don't care if the category is deleted, however." Actually, I consider a Category:European jazz musicians good to have, although it goes beyond the current order scheme of genre, nationality and instrument. It would establish something like "region" (or "continent"?) as a parent of the "nationality" categories. BNutzer 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Continental" categorization of people is generally discouraged at WP:CfD. See for example, the recent discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Category:Asian people by occupation, which deleted Category:Asian musicians (among others). Of course, that had some additional issues, but there are other strong precedents for deleting similar categories. Unless "Euro-jazz" is really a valid subgenre of jazz, I suspect the category should simply be deleted, after the members are recategorized under more appropriate by-nationality (and by-instrument) categories. Xtifr _tälk 08:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xtfir. Categorization by insstrument, genre and nationality is enough. We don't need to split Category:Jazz musicians by nationality into continental sub-categories. Bencherlite 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a valid subgenre. I guess then it's a deletion candidate. BNutzer 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do you want to nominate it? (If you've not done so before, the instructions at WP:CFD are sufficiently detailed to follow - well, at least, I've managed in the past...! Bencherlite 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer someone else would nominate it. BNutzer 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I recently annoyed User:Mind meal by nominating a category he'd created; he seemed quite incensed that I would dare do such a thing. He seems to be a strong advocate of this category as well, and I don't want to give him the impression that I'm stalking him or trying to pick on him, especially since I respect a lot of what he's doing, so I would also rather see someone else nominate this. Xtifr _tälk 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, User:Mind meal has nominated it himself. Bencherlite 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singers by style not genre

I just nominated that Category:Singers by style be merged into Category:Singers by genre. It goes against reason that we would make some odd exception for singers by "style", when all other musicians are categorized by "genre". I obviously have missed out on relevant discussions concerning this, if there was one. Why is there this exception for singers? Is it for technical reasons, or for some actual important statement that must be sent? Incidentally, the nomination for the merge can be found here. (Mind meal 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have to admit that I would also like to know. It may simply be that the category predates the project and guideline, in which case, I would strongly support renaming the categories and changing the guideline. I'll advertise this discussion on the main project page to get a wider audience. Xtifr _tälk 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xtifr. We may have started off a little awkward, but we think alike more often than not recently. (Mind meal 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Trumpet players or trumpeters?

We currently have a mix:

etc... It's a mess, partly caused by me (since I've been creating trumpet categories) but the problem was that we had the inconsistent Category:Trumpet players and Category:Jazz trumpeters before I started. The rest of the categories tend to use "Fooers" or "Fooists" rather than "Foo players", but mindful of the heated discussion at CFD over Tubists vs Tuba players, I thought I'd raise the issue here first to see what people think. Bencherlite 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "trumpeters" myself, and I don't think it's likely to be as controversial as tubist vs. tubaist vs. tuba players was. Xtifr _tälk 08:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I; neither do I. I'll pop off and mention this on the main WP Musicians page and at Trumpet and assuming little dissent, I'll make the proposal that way round. If we're in the minority, I'll change the proposal! Bencherlite 09:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll third the vote for "trumpeters", it doesn't sound goofy like "tubist" and it will be consistent with other terms like "trombonist". Eggness 08:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many subcategories for some instrumentalists

I've just dropped a note at the Category:Oboists by nationality sub page, but few will probably catch that. For some classical instruments the number of players in other genres is very low. Oboists are an example, with perhaps a few dozen really notable non-classical players worldwide. Bassoon, cor anglais, and recorder players will also be sparse in the jazz and rock sections. And apparently there is a rock harpist (Zeena Parkins), but to find out you'll have to click your way through the categories Harpists -> Harpists by genre -> Rock harpists -> Rock harpists by nationality -> American rock harpists (The same thing for the classical accordionist John Serry, Sr. and jazz clavichord player PDQ Bach (made you look). Why not put Zeena under just "rock harpists", itself an immediate subcategory of harpists? I don't think this category will get impractically overcrowded, and you will get rid of a lot of dead wood. And "Afghani harpists", "Albanian harpists", "American harpists", etc. could be direct subcategories of harpists by nationality and include all genres.

I suppose the reason for the existence of 4 categories to categorize one person is consistency with the ubiquitous instrumentalists like pianists, but I've found it painful to find my way even through somewhat populated categories (e.g. while setting up my List of oboists). Other people that just want to look for famous instrumentalists or a particular player whose name and nationality has escaped their mind will also be annoyed by the amount of clicking one has to do. Afasmit 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant CfD discussion for those who watchlist this page

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_11#Category:Russian_cellists_by_genre, proposing getting rid of an intermediate layer of categorisation, may interest some who read this. It link in with some inclusive discussions above. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another CfD notice - 220 or so "(nationality) (instrument) by genre" categories nominated for upmerger

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_25#Category:American_bassoonists_by_genre_and_similar_categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English classical organists

The related Category:English classical organists has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

I'd like to discuss this further, but because the cfd is closed, I think this is the most appropriate venue. In the cfd, Bencherlite (talk · contribs) mentions:

Category:English organists appears to have several articles that could be better categorized as classical organists. That does not mean that the two categories are duplicates; it merely illustrates that the categorisation process is incomplete.

I'm confused about the presence of these articles in Category:English organists. In some cases, they are duplicated in Category:English classical organists, such as Edward Purcell (musician). Whereas, in other cases, they are listed only in Category:English organists, such as Frederic Archer. Ideally, should Category:English organists only contain subcategories? Or is it valid for Category:English organists to contain articles? Noca2plus (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Musician?

Broadly speaking, a musician, is someone who plays or writes music. It seems, however, that we're leaning more to the professional side; what about people who are accomplished--and therefore have wikipedia articles--but best known for their non-musician work. For example, Daniel Libeskind, is a noted architect, but he is also an accomplished musician.

I submit that he should be a musician category and I have placed him in the Accordionists category.

Hoping to hear some, no--many, comments. --TMH (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the question whether being a musician is a notable and integral part of that person's life - if we added anybody who is a guitarist and on WP into category:guitarists it would make a mockery of the category, OTOH If someone has (as Daniel Libeskind has) performed publicly and not as part of their other notability, a case can be put forward to adding such people. Just my thoughts. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject is requested to take notice.

A discussion is underway that would benefit from the thoughtful consideration of the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community. Aspects of the discussion are reasonably anticipated to be of interest to the editors known to monitor this page and all are openly invited to consider participation.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Christian musical groups

Can I get some input at Category talk:American Christian musical groups § What are the criteria for inclusion? please? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs by artist: genre categories that are mostly right but wrong for certain songs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion, there are good points on both sides of the discussion, but no agreement has a majority. AlbinoFerret 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should all song genre categories be removed from all "Songs by artist" categories, and be applied to song articles only? For instance, under Category:The Beatles songs, the category "British rock songs" would be removed, and instead applied to the appropriate Beatles songs, for instance "I Want to Hold Your Hand". (The category "British songs" would then replace the "British rock songs" category, to retain the national connection of all Beatles songs.) Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support. For years now, people have been categorizing artist songs by genre by going to Category:Songs by x artist and adding a genre. What this does, though, is make the unsupportable claim that every song by that artist falls under that genre. For instance, John Lennon's song "Number 9 Dream" is presented to the reader as having a psychedelic pop genre, but it is also categorized as Category:John Lennon songs, which is then categorized as Category:British rock songs. "Number 9 Dream" is not rock, but we are categorizing everything John Lennon produced as British rock, including this song, so we are wrong here. Many more examples like this can be found—songs that are outliers from the main body of work of a certain artist. The Beatles "Revolution 9" is an experimental sound collage, not a song in any normal sense, but we are calling it a British pop and British rock song through the category Category:The Beatles songs. Same for "When I'm Sixty-Four" which is definitely not rock. And how about Queen's "You're My Best Friend" which is straight pop, but since it falls into the Category:Queen (band) songs, the song is supposedly hard rock, British rock, prog rock and glam rock, all of which are wrong.
If we support this RfC, then song genres will become explicit, easier to maintain, easier for the reader to see. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — The current system makes no sense, as Binksternet says. We can't just blanket categorize things, or put all of one artist's songs in one box. Eman235/talk 03:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A general rule like this is not necessary. In cases such as those listed above, where a band's songs could be in multiple genres, it should not be applied, but where they are not, it should not be forced upon those categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If all a band's songs are actually in one genre, sure. Eman235/talk 04:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter, would you support removing all genre categories from Category:John Lennon songs, Category:The Beatles songs, Category:Queen (band) songs, and all other songs-by-artist categories where the artist has released a notable song in some genre that isn't their main one? Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So instead of blanket "by artist" categorization, we end up with thousands of songs categorized individually under Category:British rock songs or Category:British pop songs or whatever the case may be? A reader is given no indication of what songs these are or who they are by. A general categorization by genre for the "songs by artist" and "albums by artist" schemes goes a long way to help navigate through all the different songs in those categories. The individual song articles can still be added to more appropriate categories. And if a group only has a small number of songs considered "glam rock", for example; that group's songs category should not be under Category:Glam rock songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the "Category:Artist songs" should still be categorized under the most general genres that are applicable to the vast majority of that artist's songs, in order to create a compromise between the point made by Binksternet and Starwars. For example, I think that Category:Queen (band) songs should be in Category:British rock songs because of the songs Queen have made, only very few are not considered rock. However, the other categories it is now in (Hard rock songs, Progressive rock songs and Glam rock songs) should be applied directly to those of Queen's songs that are considered such. In other cases, this categorization should be treated based on the situation; as Walter says, a general rule is not needed.--MASHAUNIX 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.