Category talk:Silverchair

Discussion from Categories for deletion
The following discussion was moved from Categories_for_deletion. The consensus seemed to be to keep this category and Category:Silverchair_albums but delete Category:Silverchair members. RedWolf 21:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Silverchair, etc.
Category:Silverchair, Category:Silverchair_albums, and Category:Silverchair members are all empty. One not-very-influential band with four albums doesn't need so many categories, or any at all. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 23:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, Category:The Dissociatives and Category:The Dissociatives members, a spin-off of the above band. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 23:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate the album category (parent to Category:Albums by artist). I'm neutral on the others. - 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Lee   (talk)


 * Disregarding the influence and popularity of Silverchair - Pyrop obviously isn't Australian and isn't fully aware of the situation - I originally created these categories way back when the category feature was first introduced, to demonstrate its capabilities. Eg


 * Daniel Johns, Ben Gilles, and Chris Joannu are members of Category:Silverchair members
 * Daniel Johns and Paul Mac are members of Category:The Dissociatives members (BTW: How does the fact that one person is in two completely different groups mean that one is a spin off of the other?).


 * Category:Silverchair members and Category:The Dissociatives members were both members of Category:Australian musicians


 * Category:Silverchair albums is a member of Category:Australian albums and Category:Rock albums
 * Category:The Dissociatives albums is a member of Australian albums and Category:Electronic albums (This one didn't get done as they only have one album so far)


 * And so on. But people didn't understand it, so they just created Category:Silverchair and put them all into that (I think.. I lost track, when I realised that it would take too much of my time to correct other peoples changes) -- Chuq 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Correcting other people's changes is one of the specialties of CfD!


 * The albums categories are pretty well established&mdash;there have been a couple of recent cases of album categories for artists who only ever released one album, and they have passed. The current standard is not to categorize albums-by-artist categories based on the genre of the band; although I can see why that might be useful, it would need to be a widespread change. It would probably be wise to bring this up with the folks at WikiProject Albums if you are interested in pursuing it.


 * At the moment there aren't a whole lot of bands that have their own categories, but I think there's enough of a precedent that you can get away with it. I'm not sure if there is a standard. WikiProject Music would be a good place to start.


 * In general, members categories seem to be few and far between. For example, Category:The Beatles members is the only band-specific sub-category of Category:British musicians. How many articles would these categories be likely to contain? -Aranel ("Sarah ") 03:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe most band member categories would have three-five articles, and most musician categories would only be a member of one band category, but there are a few exceptions. The best use of the band member categories would be the other way round - when a single person is in more than one band.  I used Daniel Johns as an example, but Dave Grohl is another one, being in about five well known bands (Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, Tenacious D, PROBOT) and maybe a few others.  Grohl's Queens of the Stone Age colleague Josh Homme has himself been involved in a couple of other bands/side projects. -- Chuq 23:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i vote delete
i don't think individual bands should have their own categories, unless there are a large number of satelite pages such as The Beatles -- BAxelrod 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)