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.
You are encroaching on the nob-squad Category:Noble houses here, so idiomatic English and common-sense are not to be expected :) Presumably all of Category:Frankish families were noble, and all likely future candidates, in which case a Merge to Category:Frankish families will enable all parents to be kept. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is good for me. And thanks for "nob-squad". That's shorter than "Hello!-reading royalty twitchers". Angus McLellan(Talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this, or those below. Etichonids sound like an endangered genus of coral, and those below variously suggest biscuits, races of sci-fi aliens etc. At least the current names give people a steer, which may well justify deviating from the article name. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I essentially agree with Johnbod's take on this and those below. Adding "dynasty" definitely makes the meaning clearer in all cases as far as category names go. I'm not strongly opposing but it's my sense that no change would be better. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The mainspace article is called Matfrid and the custom is that the descendants of said Matfrid are Matfridings books, scholar. For the record, there are more Matfridings out there - not huge number, but some - who could have articles. So, too small, no scope for expansion? Maybe. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:42, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:43, 15 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coming from a background of editing classical music, I created the category to match other categories in the classical music area (WP:CM). For example, Category:Symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven, Category:Concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Category:Oratorios by George Frideric Handel. But since these are songs, the category is being cross-categorized into the songs area (WP:SONG). In the songs area, it looks like the distinctions between performer, composer, lyricist, "songwriter" need to be spelled out in more detail. Personally, it doesn't matter to me exactly what the title of the category is so feel free to rename it if you'd like. I will point out that there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus in the Category:Songs by songwriter category (e.g. Category:Songs by Irving Berlin). Looks like a lot of categories to rename. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "consensus of other "Songs written by _____" categories" is not visible to the naked eye looking at the category, and the classical convention runs the other way. "written by" is intended to distinguish them from ones "recorded by" etc, which is not likely to confuse here, unlike many other cats. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Matching existing categories is important, and what may be the same, achieving consensus. I'm starting with the obvious: my initial reaction was: "a song by Franz Schubert" is "a song written by Franz Schubert" only because if I know a little about classical music, or can't think what else it could mean, or happen to be on the Franz Schubert (composer) page. What if the composer were also a singer? - e.g. "songs by ABBA" could be likely "songs composed by ABBA" or songs "songs recorded by ABBA", and there may be other sensible ones "songs ...ed by ABBA". While the simplicity and the obvious is attractive, if one hopes to define standards, then maybe the route should be the thorough "(noun) (verb)-ed by (name)", hence "Songs written by Edward Elgar" - who knows, he might have been a bit of a singer too! P0mbal (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO we should follow classical music category style, not that of WP:SONG which doesn't cover art/classical song (according to their project page). --Kleinzach 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - What about rounding up all of the sub-cats for songs by classical composers and putting them in their own grouping category, Category:Songs by classical composers, instead of having them directly in Category:Songs by songwriter? Then we could retain both of the naming conventions without intermingling them. The new sub-cat can be sorted to appear at the top of the page.Cgingold (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as the most suitable category I can see; there is no wider article for classical songs, perhaps there should be. See the article. There would be nothing odd about a lieder recital containing some of these. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs by Edward Elgar certainly shouldn't go in Category:Lieder. I'd suggest having an overall cat. called 'Art songs' under which the various national song traditions could be included. --Kleinzach 15:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Art songs' is not ambiguous and it's a widely used term.--Kleinzach 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In America perhaps, to some people - not elsewhere. We are having enough trouble with Category:Art pottery. "Art foo" usually turns out to mean wildly different things to different people. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American. I don't live in America. Art song is the generally-used term in the English-speaking world, see the WP article explaining it.--Kleinzach 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see, according to that article, that it includes Kundiman songs from the Philipines, among other things. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops... I see my little add-on question re Elgar went and hijacked the discussion! I was hoping for some responses to my suggestion for resolving the larger issue by separating out the classical songs from the super-category. Even with the creation of Category:Classical songs -- or should I say, "even more so" -- Category:Songs by classical composers seems like an elegant solution to the larger problem. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this CFD is a direct outgrowth of a related CFD to standardize the naming of "Songs by X" sub-cats that is still under way. Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold: Thank you, I agree with your suggestion of "separating out the classical songs from the super-category" - just as I deplore Johnbod's creation of a problematic new cat (which will presumably cause yet another time-consuming Cfd). Category:Songs by classical composers is clearer than Category:Classical songs. I don't like the word 'Classical' - it's a misnomer in particular for contemporary works (also used in a different sense in Jazz etc.) - but it's widely used throughout the Classical music project categories, so perhaps it's unavoidable. --Kleinzach 02:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion re: mistaken deletion of category mid-discussion
Category already deleted. The category we are discussing was deleted by Cydebot on 11 January 2009 at 16:40. Was this a mistake? What happened? --Kleinzach 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was it nominated twice, the other time as part of a much bigger nom? I think it might have been - does someone have the link. If the songs by composer cat really is being standardized, objecting here is more difficult. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Cyde about this. --Kleinzach 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it does look like the result of a group nomination. Here's Good Olfactory instructing the bot. And here's the relevant group nomination. So I take it maybe we should just close this discussion as resolved? It wouldn't make sense to have this one category be of a different format than all the rest. --Cyde Weys 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the cat should be reinstated because (1) the Cfd is in progress and (2) the clear consensus so far is to keep the cat. Presumably there is no great technical difficulty in doing this? --Kleinzach 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no reason to reverse it before the end of the CFD anyway, because if the CFD does end up with a result of "Rename", then you'd just have to reverse that. But seeing as how all of the "Songs by ..." categories were renamed to "Songs written by ...", why should Edward Elgar's category be different? Categories need to be consistently named. As go the rest of these categories, so goes this one. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is very far from being the case, though the "written by" proportion has moved from about 50% to maybe 75%. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I pointed out in the other CFD that the Elgar category had not been properly tagged -- which is presumably why TPH started a separate CFD for it. I strongly suspect that the closing admin (Good Olfactory) saw the CFD notice on the cat page and (understandably) assumed that it was tagged for that CFD. If so, then it's deletion was technically in error and should be reversed. I will leave a note asking him to look into this. Cgingold (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the previous CfD, and I take responsibility for instructing the bot to rename it. Yes, I assumed that all the categories were properly tagged. Before adding them to the work queue, I checked a few, including the ones that Cgingold had actually pointed had not been tagged, and they were, but I didn't think to check if the templates were actually linking to a different discussion! I have no problem in reversing the change for this particular category because of my shortcomings on the close. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category restored as it was at start of discussion. Sorry for the inconvenient interlude event (the relevant discussion has been collapsed above)—please continue discussion below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (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.
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. Kbdank71 16:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent category Infectious disease deaths in...and addCategory:Deaths from AIDS-related illness to category entries. This is an example of overcategorization per current practice if not per explicit consensus. We have disease-related deaths categories by country currently only for the overarching Category:Infectious disease deaths by country and Category:Cancer deaths by country. I have been expecting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by country to be created as I find this to be on par with the two already established hierarchies, however, the AIDS-related structure involves too much detail. I also think that allowing for a specific AIDS hierarchy at this time will contribute to the stigma associated with this disease (syndrome) wihtout adequate justification. There is an additional complicating factor here in that not all AIDS deaths are specifically infectious disease deaths (i.e. some cancers are part also of the AIDS syndrome), however, as all of the nominated categories (bar a couple) have the Infectious disease deaths in... category as their parent, I believe we need not make any specific provisions in this regard. __meco (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Contribute to the stigma"? Yer still livin' in the 80s, boy. But if that really was still a problem today, nothing kills stigma like widely available unbiased accurate information. Hesperian 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the rationale of the nomination is uncompelling to say the least. While I believe that some of these deaths categories are overly specific (I see no reason to break them down by state for example) I see no justification for the wholesale removal of a particular disease from the scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that editors are slavering to break down any other deaths categories. I would also note that merging AIDS deaths to "infectious disease" deaths is inaccurate because AIDS is not an infectious disease but is instead diagnosed by the presence of HIV plus an additional diagnostic factor. Otto4711 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AIDS is already categorized as an infectious disease, although it is also more than that. I can only reiterate that the only other diseases apart for AIDS that are currently broken down by countries is infectious disease and cancer. So whether you choose to count AIDS as belonging to the parent category infectious diseases or not, by having this hierarchy we are setting the precedent for a lot more diffusion of either the diseases hierarchy (such as Category:Autoimmune disease deaths by contry etc.) or the infectious diseases hierarchy {e.g. Category:Dysentery deaths by country etc.). I must also emphasize that I'm no principled opponent of such profuse difussion and I might myself assist in populating these structures should the outcome of this discussion provide such a precedent. __meco (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor or editors may break down some other disease some time and should that happen we'll examine that structure then. In the meantime, the suggestion that AIDS deaths by country and by extension the response of different countries to AIDS is not the subject of encyclopedic study is absurd. This is an instance where state-level divisions may be appropriate. There was certainly a difference between how one lived with and died of AIDS in California and how they lived and died in, say, Oklahoma. Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are assuming that my nomination includes the Category:HIV/AIDS by country hierarchy. It doesn't. It is limited to diffusion of the persons (victims) category. __meco (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but that doesn't leave the field open as a free-for-all. __meco (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this category scheme to sub-divide by country, per hundreds of others. Lugnuts (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a strong defining characteristic and a rather meaningful intersection that would be lost by upmerging as proposed. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (creator of most). I started sub-dividing these and other "cause of death" categories as a prelude to nominating some of them for listifying as non-defining. I figured listifying would be more acceptable and easier to organize if we already had a subdivision of the large groups into by-country categories, so I created the categories first as a prelude to a broader effort. I haven't had the courage yet to attempt to divide Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease by country, and now I'm not sure if I even will. (Side point: Does anyone think the cardiovascular deaths categories are worth having, even as a list? Respond on my talk page, not here.) These AIDS-related deaths categories may be more defining than some of the other causes of death, however, and may be worth keeping. I'm fine with whatever the consensus is to do with these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (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.
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 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:World champions in pocket billiards[edit]
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. Kbdank71 16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, to that or to Category:World pool champions. All the other pool/pocket billiards categories use "pool" not "pocket billiards". The term "pool" is unlikely to be ambiguous in the context. The article itself is at pocket billiards, but this is because it is ambiguous as an article title ("pool" can also mean "a small body of water"). PS: The only category this is a subcat of is Category:Pool players. There is no Category:World champions, so I'm curious if anyone has any other suggestions for an alternative, more general parent category. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 9 January 2009 (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.
Post-closure note: It wouldn't be "World pool champions" because there is no such thing as "world pool", but it would be ambiguous enough as to mislead some readers into think that there was. I'm adding this comment here, after the "do not modify" archive, because CfDs have no talk pages but the point may be important should similar matters come up later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:delete. Kbdank71 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization of performers by performance—the performance being having performed a work by Wagner. Also similar to other deleted people by person categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many opera singers do some Wagner, which makes it difficult to decide who is and who isn't a 'Wagner singer'. NB We don't have cats for 'Mozart singers', 'Verdi singers' etc. --Kleinzach 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the term "Wagnerian singer" does refer to a specific kind of singer (a singer with a heavier vocal weight and timbre that is able to be heard over a much larger orchestra than in other forms of opera), it is a term that is somewhat haphazardly and inconsistantly applied to individual singers. There is a certain ammount of ambiguity here that Kleinzach has rightly pointed out which makes this a bad category.Nrswanson (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep: The ambiguity does not appear to exist in the term, but rather in the minds of some editors/readers who do not understand it and mistake it for something meaning "singer of Wagner". If, as Nrswanson says, the term does have a clear definition within the music world, and a reliable source can be found labeling a subject such a singer, then it is a valid category in which to put that singer, all other things being equal. Poor public understanding of a jargon term is not necessarily a very good reason to delete a category, esp. if a main article can be written for it and linked to from it with {{Catmore}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMO 'Wagnerian singer' doesn't have a clear definition even within the music world. As Nrswanson points out, the term is used haphazardly.--Kleinzach 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Probable Delete - I think this is probably better described as being akin to a genre. There have been singers who are/were clearly recognized as Wagner specialists. But I'm doubtful that there's a clear enough distinction to support a category. A list, or better yet a real article, would probably be better. (I've notified WikiProject Opera of this CFD.) Cgingold (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a Wagner Project - where this Cfd has been noted. There is also a substantial list of Wagner singers compiled some time ago. It never went into article space because of concerns about afd hassles over definitions etc.--Kleinzach 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator). I'm not sure why the category is empty now. At the time of nomination, there were two articles in it. Thanks for the clarification on exactly what the term may refer to. It still sounds like it's too undefined. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I emptied it after contacting the creator who apparently decided to abandon it rather than respond to me or the project. --Kleinzach 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be good enough to put those articles back in the category? As I point out whenever this happens, removing the contents preempts the CFD process -- which is why it says right on the CFD notice, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Sorry for the bother, but it's very important for the process to run its course. Cgingold (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the cat from the last article (Wolfgang Windgassen) at 10:34, 8 January 2009 (see [1]), with a note saying "rmv cat pending discussion at Wagner Project". This Cfd began about 5 minutes later, hence Good Olfactory didn't realize that the cat was empty and I didn't know that there was a Cfd. The other articles originally so cat-ed were Astrid Varnay, Jess Thomas, Birgit Nilsson, Lauritz Melchior, Gwyneth Jones (soprano), Hans Hotter, and Kirsten Flagstad (I think that's complete). I can't see useful purpose in populating a cat that was empty before the Cfd started. --Kleinzach 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what happened. When I first saw the category it had two in it, then by time I added the template to it it must have been emptied. A total coincidence of timing, I think. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kleinzach - the list of names is just fine. Seeing what is/was in a category helps other editors to evaluate how it's being used and whether there's a good rationale for it. Cgingold (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of singers provided by Kleinzach above demonstrates the problem: only Melchior, Windgassen and Thomas sang Wagner more or less exclusively. Jones has sung all sorts of stuff from Mozart's Donna Anna to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, Hotter sang a lot of (Richard) Strauss, Nilsson was a noted Turandot and so on. --GuillaumeTell 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least the list would be worth resurrecting. It is silly to demand exclusivity; Nilsson and Hotter are clearly among the best known Wagnerian singers & Melchior sang Otello 31 times & a number of other non-W roles [2] etc. For the tenors we have Category:Heldentenors, which could be a sub of this, but nothing for the other voices. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnbod well said. Wagner's music dramas require singers to have "different voice ranges" than other operas such as Heldentenor and Wagnerian soprano. I don't see why this useful category should be deleted.--Caspian blue 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, that's not true. Wagner didn't invent new kinds of singer, he used existing ones. I think you need to look at the Fach article to see how the German and Italian voice types correspond. There are also heavy 'dramatic' voices needed in Italian opera, e.g. Otello and Turandot. Take a contemporary example: Bryn Terfel. He has a typical 'Wagnerian' voice and yet he spends most of his time singing other repertory. --Kleinzach 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I did not say that Wagner invented new kinds of singer. Due to my English, the "different" may you misunderstand my comment though. Bryn Terfel is not called "Wagnerian singer" because his repertories are tilted toward Mozart and Verdi's works.--Caspian blue 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance overcategorization per nom. If kept is should be renamed to something like Category:Singers of Richard Wagner works but it shouldn't be kept. 12:54, 10 January 2009 Otto4711
Upmerge to Category:Opera singers. Almost all Wagner's works were operas. Few of them are likely only to sing Wagner. Yes there are fine distinctions in voice types, but I do not think that we need to disambiguate by composer. Furthermore, this is essentially a performance by performer category, which we regularly delete (sometimes listifying). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (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.
