Category talk:Musical terminology

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this category or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Music theory NA‑class

	Music portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
NA	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Comments[edit]

Not everything musical should go under this category. For instance, Lipps-Meyer law is not a term, its a "law". Hyacinth 20:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By all means, move it elsewhere. I've just beening cleaning up Category:Music as it was bulging with a wide array of unrelated items. Tuf-Kat 21:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Any objections if I move almost everything to "Category:Music theory" except musical terms (as in musical terminology? Hyacinth 20:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Depopulation of this category[edit]

This category has been depopulated by Redheylin using Wikipedia:HOTCAT. It is probably that this was a large category before the articles were removed. Arguably that the cat should have been called Category:Musical terms rather than Musical terminology, but that move was never done, nor was the category listified, which would have been another possibility.

The lead to Category:Terminology reads "when suitable specific categories don't exist to hold them they should be placed into the root category for that topic until a better categorization presents itself" in other words they shouldn't have been dumped out of the category without a suitable alternative beinhg created.

In any case automated processes should not be used for this kind of controversial editing. --Klein zach 03:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for inclusion[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_%28music%29 As a non-authority, I will not presume to make changes, but I will add this suggestion as I expected to find it here and did not, though I did find the article for the term. Cheers Thistledowne (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]