Category talk:Deejays

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree reason: "Disc Jockey" and "DJ (Deejay)" are completely different term for different cultures. These should be distinguished.

  • In many cases, "Disc Jockey" means personalities of broadcasting program on radio, podcast, etc. (Also this term is used in old type disco cultures, etc.)
  • In club / Hip hop cultures, "DJ (Deejay)"s play not only CD/turn-tables/DJ-mixers set, but also Grooveboxes, Acid machines, Ableton Live, Max/MSP, etc. In many cases, they are also a kind of musician or perfomer of Live Electronica, thus, they are not called "Disc Jockey" to distinguish from old type DJ who plays only discs (or cartridge tape players on some radio stations).
  • On English Wikipedia, both type of DJ are described in one article, en:Disc jockey, but it is a problem of other project. It should be ignored on Wikimedia Commons.

--Shoulder-synth (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) [correct spell] --Shoulder-synth (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you are basically saying there are two different things, and Wikipedia does it wrong by lumping it all together in one direction. But that also implies that we do it wrong here in the other direction. Can we do better? Ingolfson (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is better that if we kept Category:Deejays as subcategory of Category:Disc jockeys.
reason: Sometimes, one thing has different names, and each names have different definitions along with different backgrounds (i.e. different languages, different cultures, different specialties, different projects, etc.), and users with different backgrounds need different categorization.
For example, Category:Organs (music) and Category:Pipe organs both contain same pipe organs. Because, the word "Organ" (or "orgue", "orgel", etc) means "Pipe organ" in many languages, but in English Wikipedia, "w:en:Pipe organs" is distinguished from "w:en:Organs (music)" with unknown reason.
In the case, the conflict was solved by sub-categorization. i.e. Category:Pipe organs was kept as subcategory of Category:Organs (music).
--Shoulder-synth (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with keeping the category "Deejays" as a subcat of "Disc Jockeys". However, how (if) are we going to move / rename these categories? Should we rename all their contents to "Disc jockeys" first, on the logic that that is the generic category, and then slowly resort all those appropriately called "Deejays" into the new subcats? Ingolfson (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already existing media under Category:Deejays shouldn't be moved.
A huge numbers of contributors have already selected Category:Deejays (or Category:DJ before 2008-11-13), because their media are almost related to club/HipHop culture. There is no reason to move these club/HipHop oriented media to radio disc jockey category by the willing of a few people.
Instead, it is better to create new category Category:Disc jockeys, then select radio disc jockey from radio station category (for example), and add to new category. The result may be more reliable than Category:Deejays. (Sometime, club/HipHop Deejay (DJ) is just a self-proclaimed title, and relatively hard to verify.) --Shoulder-synth (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(←) Hold on. First you say deejay/DJ is different than disc jockey (obviously the words are related but I know what you mean), then you say it should be in a parent category call "Disc jockeys" implying that a deejay is in fact a disc jockey. Since culturally these two groups are far enough apart I don't think they need to be in the same category (besides, one's a musician and the other is not; yet this is in Category:Musicians). Basically, a "Disc jockeys" category would be pointless as it would only ever contain two subcategories while always filling up with a mix of the two. I think the answer may be a disambig page instead. In summary: Let's leave this category alone. Pull out all the radio DJs, put them in a new category, and make Disc jockeys a disambig. page (if needed). Rocket000 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, of course "disc jockey" is the etymology of "deejay", but I agree that in the hip-hop culture it has acquired a different meaning. It's not really a matter of disambiguation—both spin discs, and there is a significant overlap of equipment—but deejaying in the hip-hop sense has come to imply a whole set of skills that are not required of a radio DJ and were not required of a party DJ at any time before the late 1970s. I do think having one supercategory makes sense, but it would also make sense to separate out hip-hop deejays from radio DJs. Also, within hip-hop, I suspect there are some serious distinctions to be made between those who basically craft mixes using the techniques of an audio engineer and those who are more turntablists, using the turntable as a live performance instrument. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to en:Disc jockey, there's actually 4 different types:

  1. Radio DJs - introduce and play music on radio stations (nowadays involves pressing buttons instead of spinning disks)
  2. Club DJs - select and play music in bars, nightclubs, and other public venues
  3. Hip-hop DJs - select and play music using multiple turntables, often to back up one or more MCs, and they may also do turntable scratching
  4. Reggae DJs - a vocalist who raps, "toasts", or chats over pre-recorded rhythm tracks while the individual choosing and playing them is referred to as a selector

-Rocket000 (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support having "Category:Disc jockeys" as the parent category, and four subcategories as suggested by Rocket000. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think sub-categories by music genres are not needed, because too detailed subcategories tends to causes some troubles and chaos. Who can re-categorize and verify over 400 media about deejays ? Instead, we can simply add music genre category to each media.
P.S. "Reggae DJ" may be not needed, because it is properly called "selector"... --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC) [mod]Reply[reply]
PS2. According to English wikipedia article, in reggae music, two different "DJ" are co-exist; One is "selector" as an origin of hip-hop/club DJ, and the other is "deejay" as vocalist/wrapper role. It is too complicated... --Shoulder-synth (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think these are genres, but types. Yes, "hip-hop" and "reggae" are genres, but we're not talking about the style of music here. We're talking about the style of DJing, so I think it makes sense. Rocket000 (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(←) Current topic "Sub-categorization of Deejays category" seems to be not related to original topic of this section. I think we don't need discussion on sub-categorization as long as serious problems aren't caused. Or, if you want to continue your discussion, please split your discussion into new section.
Note: In my opinion, anyone can freely categorize media whenever he/she had enough rational reasons and only when he/she don't disturb others. Later, other users can verify it and possibly correct it (if it cause some problems), and when some serious problems occur (i.e. interest opposition, difference of point of view, etc), we should discuss it here, IMO. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just trying to help. I have no strong feelings either way. Rocket000 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done In this discussion, most users opposed the renaming of category, thus I deleted the proposal {{Move}} template from the category page. If you want to rename the category again, please discuss about it on the new topic. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]