Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 5

5 December 2010

Category:Music, mind and body

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)

• 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)
• Close as moot. 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

"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)

• Endorse. Seems pretty clear to me. --Kbdank71 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
  • "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)

• "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)
  • This is not really a forum to rehash arguments from CFD, but if you read carefully you can find my reasons: "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)

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)