Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Category Tree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMusical Theatre Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Musical Theatre/Category Tree is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Thoughts[edit]

  1. Should "Musical theatre librettists" be a subcat of "Musical theatre lyricists"?
  2. Should directors and lyricists be broken down by nationality?
  3. The musicals by nationalities pages say to categorize them by composer's nationality. I think we should change it to "creators": sometimes American creators will take the music of, say, Edvard Greig and adapt it for the musical. Furthermore, Galt MacDermot is Canadian -- does that mean Hair is a Canadian musical?
  4. Do we really need the musicals by year? To me, it seems like categories for categorization sake. If kept, they say "written or first performed" -- I think we should narrow that to just "first performed".
  5. "Takarazuka related" should probably be renamed "Takarazuka" (whatever the hell that is....).
  6. Is there a better way to subcat "Musical films"?
  7. I think "Blackface minstrelsy" needs a sub cat for "Blackface minstrel shows and films".
  8. "Musical theatre characters" could probably use a couple more subcats: "Wicked characters", "Rent characters", and probably a couple more.
  9. Song categories should probably be standardized: either "Foo songs" or "Songs of Foo". There's probably a rule somewhere.
—  MusicMaker5376 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my opinions on the questions above:

  1. Writers of books should be on an equal level as lyricists and composers. They are not a subcat of lyricists.
  2. I don't think we should create lots of categories with just a few members, like Ecuadorian directors. What about combining some regions with few members, like South American directors?
  3. Well, this is always going to be more of an art than a science. I think that if the majority of creators (book, lyrics, music) are from one country, that is a pretty good indicator, but if the original major production is in a different country, then it is a difficult call. I think it might be helpful to inidicate that in deciding this one should look at all the circumstances, including where the creators are from, where the major original production(s) occurred, etc.
  4. I like musicals by year. I think it is a great research tool. On the other hand, I don't think we need separate categories for songs of a particular musical.
  5. It doesn't matter what we call it. Why re-cat things just because you don't like the name of the cat? Other people have been using the cat and apparently the name makes sense to them, since they put a whole bunch of items into it.
  6. The subcats don't make any sense. I would just make one category for musical films.
  7. OK, unless you want to put them in the main Blackface category
  8. Why do we need subcats for particular shows? If we must have subcats for particular shows, how about "Songs and characters from Rent" to combine them?
  9. I'm not a big fan of standardizing unless there is a reason for it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, say I.

Hope that helps. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I will upcat librettists.
  2. Well, looking at naming conventions for categories, it says to categorize people by nationality and occupation -- it doesn't say anything about regions. I think lumping them together in regions is a little, um, insensitive (?). Kind of like saying, "Your country isn't important enough to have its own category."
  3. I will change the wording on the category.
  4. Cool. I'll leave it. Should we narrow it to "first performed", though?
  5. I was thinking that metaphysical words like "related" or "articles" shouldn't be in the names of cats, but I couldn't find anything at WP:NCCAT. ("The naming of cats is a difficult matter, it isn't just one of your everyday games....")
  6. Should I nominate them for deletion? It seems that most of the musical films are in the main category.
  7. They are currently in the main blackface category, but I was thinking that it should probably just be for styles and whatnot. I'll create a new category.
  8. Categories should be as specific as possible. They shouldn't combine two different subjects. Even if we have just a category "Rent", they would eventually have to be categorized by songs and characters.
  9. Again, I was thinking there was a rule. It's very strange -- if you look at subcats for, say "Songs by composer", they're all "Songs by Mozart", but "Songs by performer" are all "Barenaked Ladies songs". (It might be the other way around.) It's strange that they're different, but completely homogeneous within the category. I don't get it.
—  MusicMaker5376 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. OK, but I don't see how having your country's cat consolidated with others regionally could be offensive. Cats aren't a point of national pride, just a research tool. LOL.

4. I'd say first major production, or something like that. I mean, if it had a B'way or WE production, then the first one of those. Otherwise, the first major professional production, not a workshop. But: what if you do Cleveland and then Off-Broadway? I guess Cleveland?

5. Again, I'd say, if it ain't obviously broke, don't fix it.

6. Yeah, I would support that. Please send me the link when you do it, and I'll go over there.

Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I know, but who knows? WP:NCCAT says by nationality, so....
4. I think just "first production" should handle it, regardless of where it was. I can't really think of any examples where the show had a small production then a Bway or WE production decades later. Maybe "first major production"?
5. Yeah, I'm gonna leave it.
6. Will do.
—  MusicMaker5376 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New category[edit]

I'm thinking we need Category:Unproduced musicals or something to be able to categorize, within Musicals by Year, musicals that can't go anywhere else. I think that if we have musicals by year, then everything should be in there. Conversely, is Ghost Brothers of Darkland County crystalballism? There are others that could go in that category; The Little Mermaid (musical) comes to mind. Thoughts? —  MusicMaker5376 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no musical there yet. As for the new cat, I don't really think we need it. As I said before, cats are a research tool. You don't need a cat to say that something *isn't* something. -- Ssilvers 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's what it does. For fifteen years, The Baker's Wife would have been in that category. The Likes of Us -- 40 years. There are others. I think they could probably be categorized by when they were written, unless that's difficult to determine, like Ghost Brothers. —  MusicMaker5376 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a by-product of my preliminary rewrite of Debbie Gibson (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Deborah Gibson (beta)), I have a new Category to propose, as advance information of musical theatre shows in workshop or otherwise under construction appears online from time to time. Where proof of progress in a musical in preproduction is documentable, I propose inclusion thereof in a Category:Upcoming musicals, for ongoing study in this WikiProject. Do advise me on the Project's go-no go decision, as other factors may contraindicate my proposal. - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cats are supposed to be used for things that are going to change soon. Maybe a list would be OK, though? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decade subcats[edit]

I added more category years from the 1870s to the 1920s, but I'm not sure all the decade subcats got updated correctly. Can you check it please? -- Ssilvers 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding empty categories? —  MusicMaker5376 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of musicals that go in these categories. This site gives a year-by-year listing of shows that opened in London. But, beyond that, there is an 1879 musical listed, but the 1870s cat doesn't show the 1879 year.... -- Ssilvers 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are articles that can EVENTUALLY go into those categories. However, if there aren't CURRENTLY articles to populate those categories, they shouldn't exist. An empty category is a candidate for speedy deletion. —  MusicMaker5376 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to put the parent category in the category page: Category:1870s musicals. —  MusicMaker5376 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Category_Tree&oldid=1122676988"