On his own initiative, User:Jeff G. moved most of the contents of Category:Record labels in Category:Audio by brand. Category:Record labels matches the English Wikipedia article Record label, while Category:Audio by brand doesn't comply with our conventions (see Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION).
User:Jeff G. refused to revert his move, arguing that “Record label” was an American English expression. He still added companies and audio equipment subcategories to Category:Audio by brand.
My first concern is to restore a category matching the initial subject (brands for audio records). This category could be Category:Record labels, or an alternative name. I am trying to find a consensus about the destination category.
Then, I think that Category:Audio by brand will have to be deleted. --Juiced lemon 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I agree that Category:Audio by brand is not a very good name for a category. Besides not fitting with the conventions, it also is not very clear what the category is about. If we need a different category structure then, could we first try to find out what it is we need to categorize?
- Record companies, the most common name for which is record label. Record label refers to the brand rather than the company, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. We might try to find a less ambiguous name than Category:Record labels for that.
- Record labels, that is, the labels that are on records. These should reside in Category:Gramophone records. If there is a category for a certain record company, then the images should also be in the category for that particular company, of course. I don't think we need a separate category tree "recordings belonging to a certain record company", as these images are very few indeed.
- Audio companies, that means companies that produce any kind of audio equipment. These could go in a category like enWP's Audio equipment manufacturers.
- That's all I can think of at the moment. --rimshottalk 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION is not "our conventions", it's your dream. My concept of this category covers the following (which maybe can get get their own subcategories at some point, given enough images, time for categorization, and time for copyright expiration):
- audio equipment/hardware by brand (such as Sharp and Aiwa stereos, Apple iPods, guitars, amps, drums, cymbals, mikes, violins, clarinets, flutes, Category:Gramophone Company record players, radios, tape players, and CD players)
- audio records by brand (blank and pre-recorded (where Category:Record labels and Category:Gramophone Company would fit), such as entire records, just their labels, their dustjackets, and their inserts)
- reel-to-reel audio tape by brand (blank (such as 3M and BASF) and pre-recorded)
- audio cassettes by brand (8-track tape, standard, mini, micro, etc. (blank (such as 3M, Maxell, Radio Shack, TDK, and Memorex) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records)))
- audio CDs by brand (blank (including CD-R and CD-RW, such as 3M and TDK) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records))
- digital audio content by brand (such as Apple iTunes and Napster)
- music producers by brand (what Category:Record labels generally means in the US, such as Columbia Records, Virgin Records, and Edison Records)
- music sales outlets by brand (such as HMV, Target, Sam Ash, CD World, Radio Shack, and traditional record stores)
- — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's the point of dumping them all in one lot? And where's the borderline between 'audio equipment' and 'electronic parts', 'audio outlets' and 'supermarkets' (for those non-US territories where 'traditional record stores' completely succumbed to competition)? My vote for keeping hardware makers, retailers and producers apart. NVO (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated in Category:Audio by brand
- still some cleanup work to be done. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
