< 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 Category:Wikipedia files lacking a description. 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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: Category:2004 MMORPGs and the other categories listed on Category:MMORPGs by year are too small to be useful categories, and even if filled, I don't believe they would be large enough to make useful categories. I think they should all be merged into Category:MMORPGs by year and listed there, similar to Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Either that, or turned into List of MMORPGs by year. SudoGhost™ 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. - SudoGhost™ 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. - SudoGhost™ 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]
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. GEC is ambiguous. I suggest renaming this to match the main article 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 Category:Clicks. We have a similar situation where Trill is a disambiguation page, but Category:Trills is unambiguous. 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 Category:Madonna is OK. I do not see why we need to disambiguate if there is no plausible ambiguity. 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 Madonna (entertainer) is the primary meaning of 'Madonna', but I don't want to stray discussion into that direction. 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]
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 #Clicks above. There is no possible ambiguity in these categories, unless another band with name "Magazine" exists (this one is close but no cigar). 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]
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.
More