Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization

message: 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)
thread_title: Session musicians

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Children's music 

message: The categories for punk rock are currently inconsistent. The current structure: 
* :Category:Punk rock musicians
** :Category:Punk musicians by instrument
*** :Category:Punk rock singers
**** :Category:Punk rock singers by nationality
***** :Category:American punk rock singers
** :Category:Punk rock musicians by nationality
*** :Category:American punk musicians
**** :Category:American punk musicians by instrument
***** :Category:American punk rock musicians by instrument
***** :Category:American punk rock singers
**** :Category:American punk rock musicians
*** :Category:Canadian punk musicians
** :Category:Pop punk musicians
*** :Category:Pop punk groups
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Punk rock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Dance artists by country" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Teachers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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).  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting bands named after people 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Musicians by band 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A request for someone to double-check my efforts, please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category for Deletion discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and  to more specific sub-cats of nationality etc. Plus, we have , which is incomplete anyway, but not .  Do we need that too? Bencherlite 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  male and female singers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New draft of the categorization guidelines open for discussion

message: *Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 5
**:Category:Instrumentalists and its sub-categories
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 6
**:Category:English child singers
**:Category:English musical groups
FYI. Bencherlite 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music categories up for deletion 

message: :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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No, it's not a valid subgenre. I guess then it's a deletion candidate. BNutzer 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd prefer someone else would nominate it. BNutzer 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fear not, User:Mind meal has nominated it himself.  Bencherlite 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Euro-jazz musicians]] 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Singers by style not genre

message: We currently have a mix:
*
*
*but 
*
*
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  and  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trumpet players or trumpeters? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Too many subcategories for some instrumentalists

message: 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. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A relevant CfD discussion for those who watchlist this page 

message: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_25#Category:American_bassoonists_by_genre_and_similar_categories. BencherliteTalk 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another CfD notice - 220 or so "(nationality) (instrument) by genre" categories nominated for upmerger 

message: 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,  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)
thread_title:  Category:English classical organists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is a ''Musician''? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This WikiProject is requested to take notice. 

message: Can I get some input at  please? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:American Christian musical groups]] 

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

message: *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)
thread_title: Discussion