- Category:Music, mind and body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deleted by vote, not consensus. Vote misinterpreted. Proposer gave "kill OR RENAME". Seconder later modified opinion to "rename". I and another editor backed "rename". Two further editors backed "recategorise under top level" (ie Category:Music, although the top-level category is otherwise fully diffused). Two editors backed "delete" but did not respond to further discussion so not "consensual". Request for notice of deletion by me ignored. Result - many articles (eg Category:Music therapy) currently no longer categorised under "Music", which is absurd and counter-productive. Reasons given for deletion cannot be identified among possible reasons given on page. Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary. Redheylin (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've notified the closer for you. I'll await his reply before !voting, in the hope that he'll clarify his reasoning. A better closing statement would certainly have been helpful.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot Comment. I've gone through the articles and categories that were removed when the category was deleted and I've ensured that each one is appropriately categorized in either Category:Music or an subcategory of Category:Music. All but 3 articles were already appropriately categorized. Many of them are in subcategories, e.g., Category:Musicology or Category:Music therapy, which is why they don't currently appear in the main category Category:Music. Other articles, like Psychology of art, are probably not appropriately placed in Category:Music or a subcategory at all, but rather reside is more broad categories such as Category:Creativity. (The example the nominator gives, of Category:Music therapy not being in Category:Music, is incorrect. The closer put Category:Music therapy back into Category:Music after the discussion was closed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator says the consensus was to rename, but the category was deleted. What's moot about that?—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that's why he said "Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary."—because he wanted the articles categorized in Category:Music. If that's not what he meant, why did he say restoration only need be temporary? His nomination here is not too clear with respect to what exactly he is seeking. I read the nomination's central complaint as being the fact that the deletion left certain articles not within the Category:Music tree. That is a moot issue. If that's not what his nomination is focused on, I'm willing to offer an alternate opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear some work done. Not glad respondents have failed to notify me, since I have done considerable work on categorising performance arts, particularly music, and notified my concerns before nominating here. As I previously explained to respondent; the thousands of such edits I have contributed includes entire diffusion of the head categories as well as work towards coherent and seamless interfaces with related disciplines, e.g. I have spent some time interfacing with electronics, acoustics, geography, anthropology, and I still cannot find a reason to object to a category that aids improvement of wiki's account of physiological and psychological aspects of music, such as the voice and the ear, perception, movement, which remains shaky. And I simply do not see a consensus to delete - objections seemed to be to some common negative private associations with the phrase "mind and body". I do not see how this perception, which I do not share or recognise, falls within the stated remit of the CfD process as a reason for deletion, and more editors supported renaming than supported simple deletion.Redheylin (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not glad respondents have failed to notify me". If you started this DRV, it is to be assumed that you are watching the discussion and will be notified of any comments here made. In any case, no one is required to notify you when they add categories to an article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Seems pretty clear to me. --Kbdank71 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation "Restoration may be temporary if necessary" - until a satisfactory means of categorising articles on psychology and physiology of music can be decided. This is at present not the case - some articles in this category have indeed been restored to the top category, which is otherwise fully diffused. The relevant physiology articles, however, have not been restored. As stated, it is not possible to distinguish mind and body when dealing with perception and CfD has no remit to decide what articles will and will not appear under any category. No valid reason has yet been given for deletion of category which is clearly defined and useful. Redheylin (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "CfD has no remit to decide what articles will and will not appear under any category." I'm not sure that I agree with that. When a category is deleted or merged to another via CfD, it is essentially a decision that the articles in the category "will not appear under" that particular category any longer. It's also possible that the CfD decision could be read as saying that no category is needed to group what you are aiming to group. I know that's not satisfactory to you, but from my reading of the discussion it was fine with most other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." Still looking for your own reason for deletion; "reminds an editor of Oprah Winfrey". I am sure that it is clear to what my comment above referred: "The relevant physiology articles, however, have not been restored." I am not able to find any discussion on CfD of the utility of grouping articles on the psychology and physicology of music - a matter upon which much material exists. In fact, I am not able to discover the slightest acknowledgement that this is actually the category's purpose. I dispute the capacity of CfD to pronounce upon musical matters. I dispute that consensus was reached. I dispute that a majority voted for deletion. Redheylin (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not really a forum to rehash arguments from CFD, but if you read carefully you can find my reasons. My comments about Oprah were to highlight what I think is the nonsense or catch-all nature of the category. Then I added: "If not nonsense, then it's at least excessively overbroad. It can be interpreted in multiple ways, and as such is not a satisfactory means of categorization. There is no need to move most of these categories out of Category:Music." I would place this under the header of a "generally bad idea", if you're looking for it to be slotted into one of those you mention from the instructions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychology/music: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=psychology+music+bibliography&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Physiology http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=physiology+music+bibliography&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
Note, under the latter, Guthrie's comment (Guthrie 1938): "Anatomy, physiology, phonetics, physics, music, psychology are only a few of the sciences involved in a study of voice. Naturally enough, the literature of the subject is widely scattered. It is not easy to find a synopsis of present-day knowledge of the mechanics of voice." You have just destroyed such a synopsis. Why? -- Redheylin (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you saying that the creation of this category was essentially original research which added a synopsis of a particular topic when no such synopsis was easy to find before? If so, that seems to constitute another good reason it was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not - the article itself is such a "synthesis" (which I am sure you meant, as I have added no articles or research myself) and it was published in 1938. Now, if you'd be good enough to stop leaping here and there in search of an argument and simply explain your deletion in terms of stated CfD policy? No Oprah Winfrey. No allegations of bad faith. No appeals to a non-existent consensus. No "Close as moot". Just; why do you believe ONLY articles about the psychology of music should be in the top-level Category:Music, why are only some of them there and under what policy have you deleted articles on the physiology of music from Category:Music? Redheylin (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above, where I restate my own deletion rationale and expand on it. (Incidentals: No, I meant "synopsis"; I was repeating your use of the term. I have never made an allegation of bad faith against you. Nor do I believe what you have stated I believe, starting at "why do you believe". I have not removed any articles from Category:Music. They are all present in the category or one of its subcategories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see - you have inserted an answer further up the page. You have said; "There is no need to move most of these categories out of Category:Music." However, not just categories are involved; some articles on music and psychology are dumped in the main category - where they are indeed the only class of article. So I am asking you "why do you believe these articles alone, out of the whole field of music, should appear only in the main category?" If you do not believe this, it is difficult to see why you have insisted upon it. Meanwhile other articles on the same subject, such as Eye movement in music reading do not appear there. That article notes correctly "the phenomenon has been studied by researchers from a range of backgrounds, including cognitive psychology and music education" - but it is not categorised under either, nor even under Category:Eye. It is categorised under "Music notation", which is inadequate. I found that article last week: I have since found further related articles - there is nowhere to bring them together, to keep track of them and cross-reference them.
The insinuation of sockpuppetry you left on my talk page is indeed an allegation of bad faith - you then appear to suggest that I am "bitter". I fear your view of things may have distorted your perception of a "consensus to delete" which is simply not there - there is not even a majority vote to delete.
Articles on the ear and the human voice no longer appear under Category:Music. Please try to be accurate and to take account of the complex job with which you are interfering.
You did not use the word "synopsis" but "original research" - and, as I pointed out, I have added nothing, just brought related articles together. This would be "original synthesis" - except that, as long ago as 1938, the "synthesis" was performed by Guthrie in the cited article, as is perfectly obvious from the quote.
I explained that "Music, mind and body" is intended to receive only articles that are classifiable under "Music" and also under "Mind/Psychology" and "Human Body/Physiology". I note you have not taken any notice of this: I apologise if it is too difficult to understand, but in no case has anyone included any other article there. You say that the phrase "can be interpreted in other ways" - you have not given any other way and nobody has misinterpreted. In any case, this is an argument for renaming, not deletion. But please feel free to explain how "music, mind and body" may be understood to concern articles other than those concerned with music, mind and body. Perhaps you could cite an article that might have been mistakenly categorised there, but hasn't been? Then we will all understand why it is such a "bad idea" to gather together articles on the subject. -- [User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see this is devolving into CFD round #2, which DRV is not supposed to be, so I'm going to cease participation in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a senseless, destructive, incivil and arbitrary deletion without consensus and far beyond the remit of CfD. Redheylin (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (!) It probably also had something to do with the death of the last unicorn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given the closer five days to explain his close, and he hasn't. All I've got to work with is his closing statement which is inadequate. There's a whole bunch of "delete" !votes and no "keep" !votes, but all of the !votes are followed up by statements of opinion, some of which are unbecomingly contemptuous and discourteous. What the debate participants should have provided, and didn't, are politely-worded, policy-based reasons to delete.
The actual objection seems to be that this category is thought to be ambiguous, nebulous and overly broad. In order to analyse this deletion, it's necessary to decide whether there's actually any rule that such a category violates. Well, this category doesn't involve living people. Categories are inherently unreferenceable, so verifiability can't reasonably apply, and this one is NPOV and not a copyright violation. Conclusion: No policy is violated. We're down to guidelines. I find the guidelines for categories (which are WP:CAT, WP:CLN and WP:OC) extremely subjective and hard to parse. There don't seem to be objective yes-or-no tests of the kind we have at AfD, MfD or FfD. I've just manually gone through WP:CAT, WP:OC, and WP:CLN looking for any guideline that says "delete ambiguous or overly-broad categories" and as of the time of typing there is not. So as far as I can see there are no rules against this category at all. What that discussion boils down to is "delete because I don't like it." In short, I can't condone this deletion at all; if there's a de facto guideline about this that hasn't been written down anywhere, then those who believe in it need to document the standards they believe should exist, so that editors can read and understand the rules, and discuss them if necessary, before they become active in the field of catgories. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep - Per S Marshall. This matter had my head spinning until I found a purpose of the category: Category:Music, mind and body includes any musical topic that might also be filed under both "psychology" and "physiology". I'm taking Redheylin's word that sets of related articles for the topic exist as Redheylin seems to have an understanding of the area and what he is trying to accomplish (we should give it time to develop). Of course, Wikipedia doesn't call physiology "body" or call psychology "head" and the category should be renamed to something like Category:Music that affects both psychology and physiology. A subcategory might be Category:Music therapy since a therapists can use music that affects both psychology and physiology in his/her work. A parent category might be Category:Musicology and/or Category:Physiological psychology. In any event, the delete reactions to the category were because they did not like the category name, which is not a basis to close the CfD as delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (changed from above). I misinterpreted what the nominator was seeking. I was initially under the impression that the nominator wanted to ensure that a merge actually took place as opposed to a full restoration of the category, so after I ensured that all the articles were appropriately categorized in Category:Music and its subcategories, I thought the proposal was moot. If the nominator is actually seeking for reversal of the decision to delete the category, I have to say I endorse the action that was taken, and I can't see a consensus in the discussion for keeping the category. There were six votes for deletion and two for keeping or renaming, and one of those was from a single-purpose account. I don't see how this could be closed in any other way than how it was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Consensus is not "I created the category and made the biggest argument while everyone else by comparsion was WP:JUSTAVOTE". Consensus is what is considered and argued to be be best for Wikipedia, and a category such as this, with its catch-all and 'new-agey' title, isn't in Wikipedia's best interest. Category:Music and the human body or Category:Music and psychology would be good, meaningful categories; Category:Music, mind and body is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Bushranger. The category's name and focus are far too vague and in retrospect, no rename could've worked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Threaten to slap the unbecomingly contemptuous and discourteous !voters, but cannot fault the closer. The category inclusion criteria are not obviously defined, and a parent article would definitely be needed first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT, uh, Endorse I don't see this "consensus", only a bit of side discussion about renaming which was inconclusive. If another category can be formed that makes some sense, then go create it. I think the legalism of insisting this category be recreated and then renamed (thereby requiring another discussion) is not worth all the typing. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
