Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22



Category:Music, mind and body

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * music, mind and body


 * Nominator's rationale: Poorly named and defined category; no idea what should and shouldn't go in here. Either kill or rename. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaaugh. A "catchall" category. Delete with extreme prejustice. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

'ATTENTION. Nested categories have been removed from performing arts articles. Summary deletion of a category may result in complete loss of categorisation of many performing arts articles under Category:Performing arts.' Redheylin (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are aspects of music studies that abut directly onto psychology and physiology, often without a hard line between the two latter to allow separation into "physiology of music" and "psychology of music", as is the case with sound perception and music therapy. The category therefore catches any musical topic that might also be filed under "psychology" and "physiology". These areas are of specific interest in non-musical contexts (such as, obviously, perception and therapy) and can usefully be placed together in those categories also.


 * I have found, continuing to categorise the performance arts, deleting and merging duplicate pages, improving "see-also"s and citations, unifying spellings as I go, that there are a lot more such articles flying around that are of relevance but have not yet been linked to music. For example, literature may have more about imagination and dance about improvisation. There is Category:Creativity. It's not possible to include whole categories or even, sometimes, whole articles, but at present the category is serving the useful process of cross-linking materials that are not, at present, completely or coherently categorised.


 * There have been previous incidents where an apparently-catch-all category was serving such an important editing role: "World folk and traditional music". In this case the point was to resolve a categorisation problem caused by incoherent "ground-up" classification of music as "folk" or "traditional". Dozens of articles had been decategorised as either "folk" or "traditional" and the summary deletion of this led to the loss of all categorisation and a lot of painstaking work. Please do not disperse material without due notice.


 * Categorisation is haphazard, from the ground up. Many articles are dumped in top categories, many have nested categories. In the mess, duplicate, orphan, NOTDIC, POV-split and other articles hide. As I sort it out I identify types of subject recurring and start a subcat. This is one such case. It's an overall area of the performance arts, the branch of musicology that studies psychology and physiology either of the performer or participant, from a therapeutic point of view and so forth. It is the subject of many studies and there are ancillary studies in dance, theatre, literature etc. but insufficient cross-referencing: such categorisation helps in this and it is not always clear what remains to be found - "catch-all" helps in this. Redheylin (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this nonsense category (and also at least its subcat Category:Musical memes listed below for deletion).--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an ambiguous catch-all lacking a clear reason for being. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which page is the main article for this category? Is it Music psychology? -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; a non-definable Oprah category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry: I am not able to detect any reason in the above. The category exists for aspects of musicology that may also be categorised under physiology and psychology, because the main category "Music" was left with a significant residue of such articles. Due to this present conversation another such article came to light. I cannot see any proposal for how these articles should be categorised alternatively. There is at present no main article for this category, but it is envisioned that articles on psychological and physiological aspects of the arts be reviewed before it is determined whether further articles be produced, say, on music in particular. Redheylin (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not able to detect any reason in my comment? I guess I need to be clearer: I think the name of the category is nonsense—it lacks a definition, and I don't think a decent definition could be found for it. I personally interpret it as being airy-fairy and related to the no-commitment-or-sacrifice-with-all-the-benefits-cafeteria-style "spiritual insight" that people like Oprah offer on their 45-minute daily programmes. 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 . Editors often get nervous when a general category is not 100% diffused to subcategories, but in this case I agree with the other editors who have commented that creating a remainder "catch-all" category is unnecessary and inappropriate for this tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Oprah was only 42 minutes. Have you been including the promos for the next show?— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a technical issue. Every time Dr. Phil's face appears on screen, a time warp bends around the Chicago studio and thereby extends the length calculation elsewhere by about 30 seconds or so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good Olfactory - The category is for physiological and psychological aspects of music - that is its definition. It exists because a number of such categories and articles needed a home. More are still turning up. Articles on music therapy, musical memes and so forth quite clearly fall into a definite subfield of musicological studies. It is often not possible to separate mind and body in the study of hearing and playing music. Many music textbooks include details of the human ear, voice etc. and consider matters such as the two brain hemispheres. The category could have been called "psychophysiological aspects of music", but I prefer short, clear English - which is what this is. Am I to understand you to say that, out of all wikipedia music articles, categories involving the psychology and physiology of music alone should have no subcategory but rather, should reside only in the main category "Music" - the ONLY aspects of music to be treated in this way? Redheylin (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not really what I said, but I think the articles currently in this category are fine to be categorized in and other appropriate ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Psychophysiological aspects of music would, indeed, be a much preferred name. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bushranger, if it makes everybody happy, be my guest, though I prefer basic English myself. Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles on the psychology and physiology of music are mostly ONLY held under main category "Music" by the existence of this category. The main category is at present wholly diffused and there was and is no other appropriate category under which to gather these topics. The argument against seems to be that "Category:Music, mind and body" somehow does not sound like it should include articles categorisable under "Category:Music" and either "Category:Mind" or "Category:Human body", which I find baffling, and certainly no reason to disperse this group of related categories and articles. Redheylin (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed renaming instead of deletion. (Would "Psychology and Psychophysics of Music" be a more understandable name?) Qwazzerman (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * — Qwazzerman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I fail to see how, , , etc. would belong in such a category. It's a nonsense catch-all. (User:Qwazzerman appears to be a SPA, so I'm not sure what's going on here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If a reasonable name and definition were found, it might be repopulated.  If there's a concern about decategorization, upmerge to .  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Great Basin Divide

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * great basin divide


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. On the surface this appears to be a useful category. However for most of these features, this is clearly not defining.   There is already a list that lays out all of these features in the main article.  Delete the category and leave the list in the main article. This includes wilderness areas, do they define the divide?  How about after they are increased in size? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. If this was Category:Features comprising the Great Basin Divide I might say otherwise. But it's not. So I won't. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yuba River Basin

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * yuba river basin


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another USGS subunit that does not have a main article and the category is being used as the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom; I thought CFDs that were uncontested for a week could be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bear River Basin (California)

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * bear river basin (california)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with unclear growth opportunities. No main article and the category is masquerading as the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could see it containing maybe 3 or 4 more pages, but that's not enough to warrant a category. Shannon  talk   contribs  04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transport disasters by country

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30. —  ξ xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * transport disasters by country


 * Move to "Transport incidents by country."
 * Nominator's rationale. The category suffers from media-like promotion as one moves up from the lowest level. For example, CSX 8888 incident is listed under two Railway Accident categories. The Category:Maritime incidents, along with the previous "Accident" categories are both rolled up into this disaster category. The category far overstates the nature of the reports that are included, resulting in, essentially, "category by media hype." Student7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. None of the country-specific subcategories are tagged or included in this CFR, nor is this category's parent, Category:Transport disasters, or its siblings, Category:Transport disasters by continent or Category:Transport disasters by year.  That aside, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by country might provide a good example to follow if "disaster" is considered hyberbolic, but this is also part of a Category:Disasters by country scheme, so I don't know.  postdlf (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Transportation accidents and incidents by country, and possibly re-establish a - rather more selective - Category:Transport disasters by country for those that are actually, y'know, disasters as opposed to oh **** moments. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Transport disasters and it makes no sense whatever to rename it. (Nothing is tagged.) Renaming Category:Transport disasters (followed by all subcats and subcat schemes) would make sense. Occuli (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The parent category is problematic because some of the subcats are "disasterous" (as it were) but many are not. There's no differentiation in the marine or aircraft category trees, for instance, even between fatal incidents and averted catastrophes. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've gone back and redefined about 30 categories I was aware of so they wouldn't be upgraded from "incidents" to "disasters." There are perhaps several hundred others that are just beyond my energy level and interest. Someone should have caught this a lot sooner. At least in the aviation categories they had the collective "accidents and incidents" but they, too were "upgraded" to disasters further up in the chain of categorization. Hmph. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedian Service Award Level categories

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * The Service Award user categories were deleted in October 2007 as a result of this discussion. They were recreated in July 2010, without prior discussion with the closer or consensus at deletion review, and re-deleted by me earlier this month under speedy deletion criterion G4 as a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". A deletion review was initiated (see here), where it was decided to revisit the discussion at CfD.


 * Scope:
 * The scope of this CfD discussion is the 18 deleted categories: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 00 through Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 17. The categories grouped users based on self-award of one or more Service Awards, which have multiple levels depending on two factors: number of edits and time served. The categories were populated almost entirely (c. 100%) by transclusions or substitutions of userboxes which contained category code.


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * In my view, there are four distinct but not unrelated reasons to delete the categories:
 * Categorizing users by number of edits and time served is arbitrary and uninformative. The cutoff thresholds for the Service Award levels are arbitrary numbers (e.g., 12,000 edits and 2½ years served), so the distinction between a Senior Editor and a Master Editor, for example, is also defined arbitrarily. In addition, number of edits and time served provide little meaningful information about a user—they say nothing about a user's interests, knowledge, willingness or ability to collaborate or the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia. For these reasons, and also because of how users used the userboxes—many used multiple userboxes and, thus, were in multiple categories, and a number used userboxes indicating 10 or more years of service (i.e., before Wikipedia was created)—categorization by Service Award level is not informative.
 * Categorizing users by "level" or status creates a false sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Identifying some users "Senior Editors" or "Master Editors" and others as "Novice Editors" or "Apprentice Editors" implies a hierarchy which does not exist. I realize that the userboxes do this anyway, but categorization is a step even beyond that. Users are free to declare almost anything about themselves on their user pages via userboxes, but creating a grouping of users (which is what a category does) based on "level" gives more formality to what otherwise would be an informal declaration. In my opinion, this runs counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Categorizing users by Service Award level does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. User categories are intended primarily to group users by characteristics which could facilitate coordination and collaboration between editors. Service Award level is not such a characteristic. Also, user categories are meant to be browsed, not merely to be bottom-of-the-page supplements to userboxes, and there is little or no reason that anyone would need to or benefit from browsing categories of users grouped by arbitrary threshholds of edit count and time served.
 * For the stated reasons, and per the weight of previous precedent and consensus (user categories which group users by activity, including Cat:Wikipedians by number of edits, or awards are routinely deleted; see here and here for a list of related discussions), I believe that the Service Awards categories should remain deleted.
 * -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted - Per all of the above, but mostly because the categories violate WP:USERCAT in that they do not "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." While using userboxes for this is fine, user categories are intended for grouping users to facilitate collaboration, which I doubt anyone would dispute does not. VegaDark (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted - I think that several good points were brought up in the DRV (and I hope the closer of this takes the ancillary comments there in consideration of this closure). But in particular, while having the awards may act as a helpful motivator towards collaboration (at least that would be my hope), the "feel good" categories, merely serve to take that positive idea and turn it into a clique-ish situation (look at us, grouped together). This sense of "inclusionary-ness" was one of the several reasons that Esperanza was ended as it was. (A cautionary tale for all such programs. While expressing that personally I will miss the "group hug" feeling that seeing those newsletters seemed to give at times on people's talk pages.) So in essence: ditch the categories, but weak keep the process. (I know this is CfD, but just in case this discussions starts an out of process WP:MfD here, I wanted to be clear : ) - jc37 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted per Black Falcon and WP:UCAT. The purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of Wikipedia. As mentioned in the DRV, these appear to be nothing more than bottom-of-the-page notices. Grouping Veteran Editors III or Veteran Editors IV into a category serve no encyclopedic, collaborative purpose. — ξ xplicit  20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted per Black Falcon reason 3 and jc37. The userboxes are at least arguably useful but the categories serve no real purpose and set a bad precedent.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw, Jeez. Where to begin? Let's clarify that there are two intertwined entities: However, it's not always possible to treat them as completely separate entities.
 * The service awards themselves, which are not in play here.
 * The corresponding categories Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 00 through 17. There are 17 levels of service awards, and a category associated with each level. That is what we are talking about here.

Categorizing a user by service level is not "uninformative". Of course it's useful information about an editor. It is a piece of information. It's like... say a baseball player is a .300 hitter. If he mostly hits singles, won't take a walk, can't run, can't play a skill position, and is a pain in the ass, he's a bad player. But most .300 hitters aren't bad players.

We don't say, well knowing his batting average doesn't tell me how many home runs he hit, so I don't want to know his batting average. Do we? That'd be crazy. But... that is what the nominator is saying: "they say nothing about a user's interests, knowledge, willingness or ability to collaborate or the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia". By the way, the service award categories also don't tell you if your tie is on crooked or offer you a ride to the airport, so I guess that's another count against them. Sheesh.

"Categorizing users by "level" or status creates a false sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia." What's false about it? If the nominator could give an actual example of this being a problem, that'd be different. But look, the Wikipedia is populated by human beings. Of course we compare ourselves to each other. You can't stop that. And you shouldn't try. I have a different approach when dealing (on Wikipedia matters) with an experienced user than with a new user. And so do you, and if you don't you should.

Saying that there is actually and in fact no difference between me (an editor with five years and 20,000 edits) and an editor with 1 day and 3 edits is to say "You know what? We don't give a rat's ass about you and your 20,000 edits". Isn't it? Of course there's a difference.

Of course for questions of content expertise it's true that experience on Wikipedia means nothing. But for a lot of the nuts and bolts of knowing how the Wikipedia works, how policies are applied, and so forth, Wikipedia experience counts for something. Not everything, but not nothing.

As for WP:UCAT, have you read it? The service award categories do not even come close to fitting any of the "Inappropriate types of user categories", which is described as categories "ha[ving] no or limited relevance to the encyclopedia". Oh, OK, my five years and 20,000 edits have "no or limited relevance to the encyclopedia", thanks for telling me that.

It doesn't fit clearly into "Appropriate types of user categories", either, but it comes a lot closer in "Categories which group users by ability to improve the encyclopedia". A Senior Editor probably has a lot more ability to improve the encyclopedia, in the sense of how to get something done and so forth, than somebody who signed up yesterday.

And as far as I know the service award categories are the only categories that say, basically: "here is an experienced Wikipedian". I can certainly see how that could be useful, don't you?

However, as the service award categories are set up, they are rather too finely grained for this, I guess - there's not really any situation where one would want to contact a Veteran Editor III but not a Veteran Editor II or IV. But if I wanted to contact an experienced editor with a question or whatever, I can at least pick (say) a Veteran Editor IV at random. But I won't be able to do that if you delete the freakin' categories.

I mean, let's face it: it depends on the question, but for a lot of questions, say along the lines of is "is this usual?" or "what is the recommended way to do this?" or whatever, wouldn't the option of picking an experienced editor to ask be useful? In fact, a noticeboard for contacting experienced editors in general might be a good idea; the admin board is used for this sometimes, but it's not intended or well suited for non-admin issues. Maybe I'll propose this sometime. But I won't be able to if you delete the categories.

But anyway, interpreting WP:UCAT (which is only a guideline anyway) as narrowly and rigidly as one possibly can, why would one do that? The categories have existed for a long time, and there's zero evidence of any negative impact. But some people don't like them (or the service awards). Which is their right, I guess, though it'd be better if they took to heart the advice embodied in the old bumper sticker: "Against gay marriage? Don't have one".

But I rather think that the nominator and some of the commentors are not well versed in organizational development and probably wouldn't know Peter Drucker if his head turned up in their refrigerator. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know anything about quantum mechanics or applied ailurophagy. But you don't find me proclaiming and pushing a point of view about these things. There's not knowing, and then there's not knowing and going on about it anyway. I don't have the time tonight to lecture about how we treat and motivate workers in a volunteer organization, but here's the short course: deleting their achievement categories ain't it. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "As for WP:UCAT, have you read it?" - Yes, I have.
 * "But I won't be able to do that if you delete the freakin' categories." - Special:WhatLinksHere on the userboxes.
 * As for "inappropriate types", those are just a few examples. To try to list every example would be prohibitive. And I might point to OC. It would seem to apply equally here. - jc37 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * However, it's not always possible to treat them as completely separate entities. - Why not?
 * It is a piece of information. - That is hardly a decent minimum criterion for whether a category should exist. The crux of the issue is: (a) whether it is useful information; and, furthermore, (b) whether it is useful to create groupings of users based on this information. After all, user categories are not merely bottom-of-the-page notices that provide information, but are in fact category pages which group users who share a certain characteristic.
 * What's false about it? - Any meaningful differences between a Level 10 editor and a Level 8 editor are due to factors other than the Service Award level itself. Raw edit count is a poor measure of the quality, experience, or knowledge of an editor.
 * [A]s far as I know the service award categories are the only categories that say, basically: "here is an experienced Wikipedian". - Please see Category:Wikipedia administrators and other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status.
 * The categories have existed for a long time. - Actually, Category:Editors with service awards was created in October 2007 and deleted the same month. The recreation which is being discussed was created in July 2010 and deleted in November.
 * As for your concern about the motivation of workers in a volunteer organization ... well, I think that's a flawed argument for a few reasons. Firstly, it was not the volunteer workers who created these categories. It was one or two editors who added the category code to 100+ templates. Secondly, of all the things on Wikipedia that could demoralize an editor, surely a single category (of which most are not aware, in my opinion) is not near the top of the list. And finally, there is no evidence, and no reason to suspect, that the existence of this category is having some noticeable motivational effect or that its absence would be demotivating (after all, it did not exist before October 2007 and between November 2007 and July 2010).
 * -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Undelete all I am not convinced by any of the arguments to delete that the mere existence of these categories is somehow detrimental to the central purpose of collaborating on, and building, an encyclopedia. They do not rise to the level of secret pages, game pages, or other activities which simply exist to allow editors to spend non-productive time on site and inflate their edit counts without contributing to the project. The cats are added once, usually via the inclusion of the ubx on a user page, and do not require any additional time or effort. If they do not detract from editors' work, they cannot be harmful to the project. Anything that is not harmful to the project is either helpful, or just too neutral to spend any amount of time on - time that could be used toward building the encyclopedia. The discussions involved in this entire process of deleting, recreating, reviewing, and discussing the removal of these categories has already taken more away from the project than the existence of the categories ever could. Thus, the removal of the categories is a net negative that could have been avoided by simply ignoring them in the first place. User page policing is far more detrimental to the project because recognition is a key method of motivating volunteers. If editors feel that they have been properly recognized for their contributions through the use of these categories, or if they inspire editors to do more work in seeking that level of recognition, the categories have obviously benefitted the project.  Jim Miller  See me 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "They do not rise to the level of secret pages, game pages, or other activities which simply exist to allow editors to spend non-productive time on site and inflate their edit counts without contributing to the project." - That's an argument for the process and maybe even the related userboxes - and has nothing to do with the categories. Categories are a technical process. they are never to be used instead of content. But rather are present as a navigational tool.
 * "Thus, the removal of the categories is a net negative that could have been avoided by simply ignoring them in the first place." - could be said about ANYTHING up for XfD, btw...
 * As noted possible by User:Herostratus above (at the top of his post), I think you may be confusing/conflating the award process with these categories. The categories do not need to exist for the process (or the associated userboxes) to continue to exist. - jc37 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No confusion here. In userspace, I find things to be either actually harmful to the project or not. It's one of the few things around here that is pretty simple. If the categories don't cause problems, and can in any way be useful navigational tools for editors, then just let them be. It's userspace. We should NOINDEX then entire U: and UT: namespaces, not worry so much about it, and allow the "fairly wide latitude" promoted by WP:UPNOT. The categories are used strictly in userspace, and I don't see how they violate WP:UPNOT. The only other possible reason I could understand being used to justify deletion might be WP:OCAT, but that is an editing guideline and doesn't to apply to userspace at all.  Jim Miller  See me 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your thinking on user pages mostly makes sense to me. However, these categories are in the Category: namespace, not in userspace, and WP:UP applies only to "user and user talk pages" (the guidelines which address user categories specifically are WP:USERCAT and WP:OC/U, which is basically WP:OCAT for user categories). The categories are not used in userspace, but rather contain/group pages which are in userspace, which brings us to the issue of whether they are useful for navigation. On this point, I can think of no reason that someone would need to browse through a category such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 06, which is for users who have been on Wikipedia at least two years and made at least 8,000 edits, but who have not been on Wikipedia for 2.5 or more years and have not made more than 11,999 edits. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find Black Falcon's general thrust to be suffocatingly pedantic. We are Wikipedians here, not rules lawyers. And anyway your particular objection here could be easily remedied by creating the supercategories "Veteran Editors" and "Senior Editors" and so forth. And I here suggest this, so assume that it's been done. Does that help? (And if you then object that "entities may not exist simultaneously in a category and its supercategory", my reply (after banging my forehead on the table three times) would be "Do you not understand what we are trying to do here? We are trying to herd cats to build an encyclopedia, and you should lead, follow, or get out of the way".) Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't help, but not for the reason you think. Calling a duck by some other name does not make it any less of a duck. A supercategory of "Veteran Editors" or "Senior Editors" would represent a broader range, but it would be defined in exactly the same manner: users who have been on Wikipedia at least two years and made at least 8,000 edits, but who have not been on Wikipedia for 3.5 or more years and have not made more than 23,999 edits.
 * I realize perfectly well what we are trying to do here, and I have expressed an argument for why I believe these categories do not advance (and likely hinder) that goal. Rather than risking a mild concussion due to head-banging (not the dance or the disorder), could you please explain to me why you believe that these catgories help with "build[ing] an encyclopedia"? Do not merely assert it, but please tell me exactly how, in your opinion, they support that purpose. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Undelete all Not in any any way detrimental/harmful to Wikipedia, are informative as user categories, and are valid user categories per both WP:USERCAT and WP:OC/U. The reasons given by nominator have more to do with the service awards directly, instead of the categories.  The reasoning appears to be that because the service awards are very bad, then the categories must be even worse.  Note that the last attempt to delete the service awards was Snowball Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in any any way detrimental/harmful to Wikipedia - See WP:HARMLESS, are informative as user categories - Category:Wikipedians who eat bananas at 4:13 PM each Tuesday is informative as well. Not for collaborative purposes, of course, but informative nonetheless. Merely being "informative" has no bearing of if a user category is proper or not. and are valid user categories per both WP:USERCAT and WP:OC/U Just checking, but did you see who actually wrote WP:USERCAT? All users who had a hand in originally writing that guideline have supported deletion here. I'd like to know how these categories satisfy the "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" requirement.  The reasons given by nominator have more to do with the service awards directly, instead of the categories - I would strongly disagree with this. In fact, I'd say the nomination very narrowly gives category-based reasons for deletion, and I'd be willing to bet Black Falcon has nothing against the service awards system itself, just as I don't have any problem with it. The reasoning appears to be that because the service awards are very bad, then the categories must be even worse. - Once again, I don't see this at all. I'm not quite sure how you could get this vibe from the nomination. Note that the last attempt to delete the service awards was Snowball Keep. - This nomination has nothing to do with the service awards themselves. They are not nominated for deletion. The categories are distinctly different from the Wikipedia space page detailing the awards, or the userbox templates users place on their pages. As the nom mentions, user categories have stricter guidelines than the userspace or projectspace in terms of appropriateness for the project. That is, it must facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. These categories don't do that, and even if it was conclusively proved that they did, it's been conceded that there's no real difference between, say, a veteran editor 2 or a veteran editor 3, so it would essentially boil down to an "experienced Wikipedia users" category, still a far cry from the 17 or so categories that exist now. I'd say one category like that would be all that's needed to perform the same exact function as the current categories do, if there is consensus that such a category would support collaboration at all. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does WP:HARMLESS have to do with my comment? I never said a thing about keeping them because they were harmless.  I simply completely disagree with the claim that they are harmful.  Please see WP:OWN in regard to your claim that the ones who wrote something (policy or otherwise) have any special claim over it what-so-ever.  I also believe you use 'must' where 'should' would be more appropriate; there are a very limited number of 'must's in the guidelines (most of them are related to copyrights and biographies). I have no more time for endless WP:WL, but a discussion concerning reducing the number of service award categories might be beneficial.  I could support reducing the number given a reasonable plan, but so far it looks like the goal is to prevent there being even one. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does WP:HARMLESS have to do with my comment? I never said a thing about keeping them because they were harmless. - You stated "Not in any any way detrimental/harmful to Wikipedia". I don't see many more clear cut assertions of WP:HARMLESS than that. True, you didn't actually use the word harmless, but I would hope we can all agree that "not harmful" means "harmless". To argue otherwise would be WP:WL at its extreme, I think. As to your WP:OWN assertion, I was merely mentioning that as counter evidence to your argument that the categories meet WP:USERCAT, in an attempt to get you to explain further. When the authors of the rule disagree that something meets the criteria, it's strong evidence that it in fact doesn't. Not to say that consensus can of course decide otherwise, I just see no evidence that it has, and would like to further understand the rationale for those arguing that it meets that guideline. As for a discussion of reducing the number of categories, I would welcome that should this close as no consensus, but until then I'll argue for what I think is best for Wikipedia, which is deletion of them all. VegaDark (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? What? I don't have a clue what you just said. If anyone can translate it for me, I'd appreciate it. I will take a shot in the dark at a response: I never, ever claimed they should be kept because they are harmless. I only claimed that the claim that they do harm is false.  I proposed compromise in the spirit of consensus and got nothing but more WP:WL in response.  Oh well, the other parts of Wikipedia I work on have not yet been taken over by a hierarchical cabal of editors, so my time will be best spent there. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could, if one wanted to, argue against the Service Awards as a whole. However, my reasons are specifically about categories and categorization, and thus would not apply to the Service Awards (not directly and not without substantial tailoring). My reasoning is not that the categories are bad "because the service awards are very bad", but rather that the categories are not indivisible from the awards and are "bad" regardless of the goodness of the awards themselves. As I wrote in the nomination, "[u]sers are free to declare almost anything about themselves on their user pages via userboxes [or text]". -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. This isn't an MMORPG, and if there is an actual difference between a Level 12 and a Level 10 user it will not be because of the difference in edit count/time registered. "Wikipedians with at least 8000 edits and registered for at least 2 years but less than 12000 edits and/or registered for less than 2.5 years" does not a good category make (nor, for that matter, does "baseball player who played at least X games during at least Y years, but less than Z games or during less than Q years"). What's so magical about the 12000th edit and the 913th day? Besides, these "awards" are not enforceable in any manner (unlike, say, administrator), so categories based upon them are even more pointless, since its members do not necessarily satisfy the award's requirements anyway. T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted These categories violate WP:OC (per the examples provided by T. Canens, Black Falcon, and VegaDark). I do not see how these hierarchical categories will "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". Category:Wikipedians by language, Translators available, Category:Wikipedia administrators, WikiProjects, and Peer review are more helpful than arbitrary hierarchal categories that do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted per Black Falcon's reasons #1 and #2. Don't agree that "does not foster encyclopedic collaboration" is reason alone for deletion.  Agree with jc37.  Support this sort of recognition by means other than categorisation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think we approaching the sell-by date for this discussion, so let me summarize a bit. First of all, opening a discussion to either supercede or supplement the categories with more grossly sliced categories (all the Veteran Editors in one category, etc.) is probably a good idea for discussion. If the categories are deleted here, it will be about superceding; if not, about supplementing.

The nominators and Delete commentors make I think three points that are both correct and cogent. However, in my opinion none of them are especiall important. They are:
 * Arbitrary in the sense indicated by WP:OC. Correct. However, a couple of points about that:
 * It's a guideline, and the examples given all relate to article categories and not user categories. How rigorously we need to apply it in this case is a open question, in my opinion.
 * It says "use a list instead", but a list is not an option here as there are two criteria.
 * I think that a main reason for not dividing articles into arbitrary groups is updatability (lists are much easier to keep updated), which is not an issue here. Three examples are given at WP:OC; two truly are deliberately arbitrary (top 7%, 100th episode) and the deletion discussion for the third was based on converting to a list.
 * Not useful for encyclopedic collaboration is a good point, since the categories are so finely sliced. This is basically true, but the navigational benefit of the categories is not necessarily entirely zero, although it is probably very small. (The creation of larger categories will address this.)
 * They are misused in that some users put themselves in an unwarranted category. I don't know how big a problem this is, and previous suggestions to police the categories have concluded that it's basically not worth the bother. I suppose this is a problem, or potential problem, with other user categories - there are probably users in the categories for users with MBA's who don't actually have MBA's and so forth, I guess. I don't know if its a particular problem for these categories. I think most of the multiple-category folks are just in good faith figuring that they are entitled to all the levels below their current level (which is technically correct). I'd be willing to police the very high categories (e.g. people claiming to have ten years experience etc.), but it's too much work to police the lower categories, and I can't think of an easy way to police the multiple category cases.

There are a couple of arguments made which, in my opinion are pretty clearly not correct:
 * Provides no useful information about the editor. Incorrect, it provides a piece of information about the user which clearly may be useful in some cases.
 * Creates a false sense of hierarchy. I haven't seen any indication that this is true, or that if it's true that it's a problem. To the extent that it creates a sense of hierarchy (which I don't think it does), it would not be a "false" sense but a true sense of a hierarchy of merit.
 * WP:USERCAT, specifically, seems to be agnostic about this case, if not slightly supportive. None of the examples given of unrecommended categories really comes close to these categories.

So then on the other hand, what do we have?
 * No evidence of harm. Deleting the categories is a solution in search of a problem. No violation of WP:UPNOT or anything else.
 * Net motivation benefit. The categories are an integral part of the service awards. We know that the service awards are popular, and we can be reasonably sure that they are a positive net benefit to the Wikipedia. The service awards are motivators, and it is very probable that the contribution of the categories to this effect is not zero. It may be small, but we don't know how small.

Bottom line: the categories do some good, do not do any harm, and deleting them is a net negative for the Wikipedia. Deleting them on the basis of an interpretation WP:OC and so forth would basically be pedantic ruleslawyering, and its not called for.

So it seems that there could be four outcomes here:
 * 1) Keep the categories.
 * 2) Keep the categories, and supplement them with supercategories (a category grouping all Veteran Editors etc.), or at any rate open a discussion about this. This would result in users being placed simultaneously in a category and it supercategory. Whether this is a problem I don't know, but I don't think it would be.
 * 3) Delete the categories.
 * 4) Delete the categories, and replace them with more grossly sliced categories (Category:Veteran Editors and so forth), or at any rate open a discussion about this. This would similar to #2 but without retaining the subcategories. This avoids the category/supercategory issue, but some information is lost. Whether this would be better than #2 I can't say.

I guess that really the only actual possible outcomes are #2 or #4, since whatever the result of this discussion we'll then go on to discuss the larger categories. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to post such a biased "summary" instead of responding to the comments and inquiries in response to your original posts. I think I have expressed my position as well as I can express it, and so was tempted not to reply again, but your "summary" contains simply too many misrepresentations and unsupported assumptions. From the top, I suppose:


 * If the categories are deleted here, it will be about superceding. - I think this—bypassing a consensus to deleted by replacing rejected categories with slightly broader ones that have all of the same problems (see, e.g., the comment dated "17:27, 26 November 2010")—would fall into the category of "gaming the system".


 * WP:OC is a guideline, and the examples given all relate to article categories and not user categories. - The principles expressed in that section apply to all categories, regardless of namespace. It is the basic idea behind the section that matters, not the individual circumstances of the three examples which happen to be cited. Also, there is a difference between deciding "how rigorously we need to apply it" and completely disregarding it.


 * Not useful for encyclopedic collaboration is a good point, since the categories are so finely sliced. - That the categories are "so finely sliced" has nothing to do with the "not useful for collaboration" argument. That argument has to do with the absence of any value in browsing a category of users divided by arbitrary thresholds of edit count and time served (and, no, changing from one arbitrary threshold to another does't fix anything).


 * It provides a piece of information about the user which clearly may be useful in some cases. - Categories create groupings of pages; they do not exist merely to provide random or arbitrary pieces of information. I'll repeat a question I asked you before: Do not merely assert that a grouping of users by Service Award level is useful, but please tell me exactly how, in your opinion, such a grouping is useful.


 * It would not be a "false" sense but a true sense of a hierarchy of merit. - So, someone who creates articles in 30 edits has, all else being equal, more merit than someone who creates the exact same articles in 3 edits? Or, someone who makes more edits due to not using "Show preview" has, all else being equal, more merit than someone who does use "Show preview" and, thus, makes fewer edits? That's what your reasoning suggests.


 * None of the examples given of unrecommended categories really comes close to these categories. - Now, this is ruleslawyering. As has been mentioned to you several times (here and at the DRV), the lists of appropriate and inappropriate categories were not, are not and never will be comprehensive (and they are not intended to be). WP:USERCAT is a guideline, not a blacklist.


 * No violation of WP:UPNOT or anything else. - The first part is true, but completely misleading: the categories do not violate WP:UP because WP:UP does not apply to user categories. The second part, "or anything else", is a bit bold to assert, considering that this whole discussion is about that.


 * The categories are an integral part of the service awards. - How so? Please provide evidence or arguments to support this claim.


 * [W]hatever the result of this discussion we'll then go on to discuss the larger categories. - This statement has the effect of pre-empting consensus. The issue has been discussed (in 2007), re-discussed (at the DRV), and re-re-discussed (at this CfD). The issue of "narrow versus broad" categories in this situation is a straw man, and here's the proof: the "problem" that would be fixed by creating supercategories is not actually considered to be a problem by any of the editors who do not favor the categories. Ignoring a consensus to delete or keep in favor of something which bypasses that consensus (such as creating "larger categories" which do not address any of the reasons for deletion) is not the right course of action.


 * -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that really the only actual possible outcomes are #2 or #4, since whatever the result of this discussion we'll then go on to discuss the larger categories. - Uh, no. The proposed broader categories would be substantially similar recreations of these categories, and, should this discussion close as delete (which I expect it will, based on both arguments and numbers), then I will have absolutely no problem with deleting said categories per G4, should you create them. VegaDark (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If the categories are deletd, that would not prejudice the creation of broader categories, I don't think. Leaving aside technical nitpicking like "uses arbitrary cutoffs", the main argument against the categories is "useless". But broader categories would not be useleess, and so they would not only not be substantially similar, they would not be even that closely similar.

For example: suppose all the categories "Localities in Northern Fairchild County", "Localities in Western Fairchild County" and so forth were deleted on grounds of being overly specific. That would not preclude the creation (if it didn't already exist) of "Localities in Fairchild County". Right? Or am I missing something? Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the nom's original 3 reasons for deletion...1) Arbitrary - would still apply to broader categories, 2) False hierarchy - would still apply, 3) Does not foster collaboration - would still apply. The notion that broader categories wouldn't be as bad as such narrow categories was merely a brief notation in the discussion, not the primary reasons for deletion, and thus wouldn't preclude deletion of the broader categories per G4. Presumably, in your example, the primary reason for deleting a "western Fairchild county" and "Northern Fairchild county" category would be because the categories were too specific/narrow, thus creation of the broader categories wouldn't fall under G4 because the original reasons for deletion wouldn't apply. With these categories, the primary reasons for deletion isn't that they are too specific/narrow, so a G4 deletion would be allowable. VegaDark (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hot in Cleveland

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * hot in cleveland


 * Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only 3 entries, one of which is a navbox that makes this cat redundant, although the navbox is an overkill too. AussieLegend (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and upmerge per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is not enough material to justify an eponymous category, and navigation is easy enough through the main article even without the category and navbox. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical memes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * musical memes


 * Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an utterly meaningless category. There is no definition, either here or in the WP article Meme, of what a 'musical meme' is. Moreover the article makes it clear that even the attempt at definition is controversial: ' A meme has no given size. Susan Blackmore writes that melodies from Beethoven's symphonies are commonly used to illustrate the difficulty involved in delimiting memes as discrete units. She notes that while the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony form a meme widely replicated as an independent unit, one can regard the entire symphony as a single meme as well.' Thus a 'musical meme' could be anything that one wanted it to be. Items that any editors include in this category must therefore be WP:OR; or, in theory, the category could include every piece of music ever written, or yet to be written, or any parts of such music - and would therefore fail WP:NOTABLE, and doubtless other criteria. Hence, delete please Smerus (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – given a parent Category:Music, mind and body, little can be expected of the offspring. Occuli (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as poorly defined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete What's a musical meme, anyway? Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Occuli - the parent category was created to house "Musical memes" and similar categories, not the other way around. Mangoe - you are voting on the usefulness of a category without seeking any familiarity with its contents? Try "The Memetics of Music: A Neo-Darwinian View of Musical Structure" (see http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/48/4/463.pdf ). I have no link with this category other than having looked at it and categorised it but it seems to me deletion rationale implies deletion of all content also - Smerus' complaint is directed not at the category but at the very existence of a body of notable and authoritative scholarship (including Blackmore), but if he can find verifiable support for his take on things I am sure he could mention it in the article. I really think it is time to take these "we don't like the sound of this" comments to the Music project and the category discussion page - it is not just that no actual musical knowledge or commitment to wiki music is being shown here, there seems to be a certain pride in not having a clue what one is talking about. Redheylin (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please dont put words into my mouth. My reasons for putting up this category for deletion are exactly as I wrote; that it is a catch-all category without anywhere a definition of what it is to include. To defend this category, define a 'musical meme' (if you can) - don't just give references to Oxford learned journals.  --Smerus (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A musical meme is any musical fragment that has verifiably been discussed as such by any notable commentator. Aversion to notice of the existence of such material in the academic domain noted. Redheylin (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Redheylin, please cease to attribute to me opinions which I have not expressed - you are not here to note me or my (supposed) opinions, you are here I hope for the sake of Wikipedia. Very well:


 * 1) most or all of the entries in this category (e.g. William Tell overture), are not fragments and therefore do not qualify under your definition. I take it then we can,therefore, on the basis of your definition, delist these automatically.


 * 2) For entries which remain (if any), please provide citations by 'notable' commentators which explicitly denote such fragment as a 'musical meme'. Where such citations cannot be provided we can I take it delist them, again on the basis of your own definition.


 * Or, rather than go through this tedious one-by one process, we can simply delete the category, as proposed by me and supported by everyone else in this thread apart from you.--Smerus (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also I am likely to turn into Mangoe the Cite-Smiter and remove every single member for which an explicit citation is not produced. That's the other issue behind categories such as this: membership is conspicuously a matter of WP:OR and personal opinion. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If a definition were produced which might be appropriate for a category, it might be recreated, but it's unlikely the present collection of articles would all be related to the same definition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Smerus, Mangoe - I do not know what steps you have taken to contact music and psychology projects, editors and c - I myself have taken none but I welcome every study of music and memory - it certainly has a place in wikipedia. Your argument is a musicological one and does not seem to belong here. I think it would be usual to tag any lack of citations in such articles rather than propose mass deletion of a topic without consulting editors who have contributed those pages. You certainly have no business asking me to take charge of this category, or of proposing the deletion of a category because you question articles included in it;


 * "Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas."


 * In Wiki terms, if there are articles on musical memes it is "a generally good idea" to have a category for them. If you question the inclusion of some articles, or if you question the entire concept of musical memes as a "generally bad idea", you need to talk about that with the editors concerned with those pages and subjects. As far as I am concerned, we have seen the concept discussed by academics, so it is valid to keep the category for pieces that have been so described. As far as what should be included goes, this is no place for that discussion. Certainly Blackmore has discussed Beethoven's 5th and I can vouch for material on the Oriental riff, so I think there's enough material for the category to be useful. Redheylin (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were an on-Wiki description of "musical memes", such as perhaps a Wikipedia article musical memes, and that description really were sufficient to determine whether an article belonged in the category, then the presence of articles on "musical memes" might indicate the need for a category. There's no "there" there, yet.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Redheylin. We don't need a category based on "A musical meme is any musical fragment that has verifiably been discussed as such by any notable commentator." & the current contents are such a tiny proportiuon of that enormous group that we should abandon the effort as misleading. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the present contents of categories is inappropriate here - the presence or absence of citations in articles in this category does not determine the category's usefulness, while the existence of suitable material does. Johnbod offers no support for his statement that there is an "enormous" amount of music referred to as "meme" by psychologists, nor why this should make their deliberations "misleading". The poor state of wikipedia's articles on psychology and the performing arts is precisely the problem that is being addressed by the review and categorisation of all related articles. Presentation of this material should be discussed by music and psychology editors at the pages concerned. The validity of the approach of these psychologists is not a matter for the current enquiry. Redheylin (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Redheylin, the more you write here, the more of a hole you dig for yourself. No one has written 'we don't like the sound of this'. What has been asked for is (if possible) a clear definition of what the category should contain. You have provided a defnition  - although this definition is not so far provided on the category page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia except in this thread. Your definition is 'any musical fragment that has verifiably been discussed as such by any notable commentator'. Not a single article currently in the category meets this description. (In fact I can think of only one Wikipedia article which could be listed under this definition, and it is not there). When it is pointed out that nothing presently in the category meets this definition, you arbitrarily declare, without explanation, that musicological aproaches don't 'seem to belong here', and disown responsibiity for what the category contains. You effectively agree above ('I think the "musical meme" is something of an academic craze') that this term is little more than a highbrow reformulation of "well-known tune" to enable employment for academic semiologists.  You ask us to accept your personal willingness to 'vouch for material' as if this were an acceptable Wikipedia criterion for validation......


 * I could go on, but I will instead make a constructive proposal. If you are so certain that this material is encyclopaedic, please write an article (as suggested by Arthur Rubin ), musical meme, explaining exactly what these are and giving the appropriate citations to give the article appropriate status. Then, and only then, will be the time to consider a category "musical meme" - and the clarity of your presentation will no doubt inhibit the inclusion in such a category, as has been the case so far, of editors' favourite pop songs or pieces of music which happen to contain any other tune which rattles around in their heads.--Smerus (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wharf
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Wharf to Category:The Wharf (Holdings)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support as otherwise a local restauraunt here would qualify for this cat by its current name! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, currently confusing, my first thought was that it was for docks and piers.--- Look2See1   t a l k →  06:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Civil rights history of Canada
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Civil rights history of Canada to Category:History of civil rights and liberties in Canada
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Canadian English rarely uses the words "civil rights" or "liberties" which sound suspiciously American to Canadian ears. We talk instead about "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms", see Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I counter-propose Category:History of human rights in Canada. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Since the main parent category is Category:History of civil rights and liberties by country. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Rename to Category:History of human rights in Canada per the comments on Canadian usage above and the main article Human rights in Canada. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:History of human rights in Canada. I agree that "civil rights and liberties" would be considered an Americanism to most Canadians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Listify and delete. As all of the categories already have lists, they can just be deleted. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * worst actor golden raspberry award winners


 * worst actress golden raspberry award winners


 * worst director golden raspberry award winners


 * worst new star golden raspberry award winners


 * worst supporting actor golden raspberry award winners


 * worst supporting actress golden raspberry award winners


 * worst screen couple golden raspberry award winners


 * people who accepted golden raspberry awards


 * worst screenplay golden raspberry award winners


 * worst picture golden raspberry award winners


 * worst prequel, remake, rip-off or sequel golden raspberry award winners


 * worst "original" song golden raspberry award-winning songs


 * Nominator's rationale: A good example of OC, compare the deletion discussions for award categories that are either similar in style or more prestigious (and not ironic/humorous): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The recipients are all already in article lists. Hekerui (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you read List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards you will see multiple notable people appreciate this award and show up to receive it themselves. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I look at Jean-Claude Van Damme's categories they all look like defining characteristics, but the Raspberry Award sticks out like a sore thumb, because it is a joke and meant as such (I like the award itself). Yes, it's nice that some people get the joke and show up but that doesn't make this an Oscar. Besides, it humour comes in when a user can check out what people got the award for and when, because there are recipients (Halle Berry comes to mind) that are generally considered good actors, and this is accomplished by the lists that exist. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And imagine the category clutter that would result if we allowed a category for every award merely if a certain percentage of recipients "appreciate [it] and show up to receive it"! That's not the standard for keeping an awards category, nor should it be! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable award and the lists/categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." sounds quite reasonable and this humourous award is not a good exception. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The awards are notable enough to warrant categories, regardless of the fact that they come across as "humorous". Tom Green for example didn't find his winning of one humorous, as you can read from his reaction. DrNegative (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So these awards are more deserving of categories than the awards I cited as precedent in the nomination, and others like the Soul Train Award and the Polar Music Prize? Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you were to assume that the outcome of those decisions set a blanket-statement for the outcome of all future discussions related to similar topics such as this one. On a case by case basis however, I still stand by my original comment to the notability of these awards. I also feel that your nomination is very close to becoming a snowball clause and I recommend you withdraw it. Good luck though and I wish you the best in your pursuit of bettering this encyclopedia. DrNegative (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In very few cases (Faye Dunaway, Donald Trump come to mind) the category is, indeed, not defining for the person. But it's spot on for all the others; the majority of these faux "actors" and their disposable shows outweighs the few exceptions. I mean, who the hell were Halle Berry or Tom Green? I wouldn't even know if it wasn't for this CFD! East of Borschov 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely defining in quite a few cases. (Though, East of Borschov... Halle Berry? She won a Best Actress Oscar for Monster's Ball.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete. (That is, delete and create list articles where they don't presently exist.)  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST are not reasons to delete, but Time Persons of the Year are certainly more notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete -- This is what we invariably do with award categories, except Nobel Prizes and a few more: see WP:OC. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a defining characteristic of the award "winners". Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete: Notable, but not defining. This is the standard treatment for all but the most defining awards. These do not rise to that level. Most of the "keep" comments above have not distinguished between the two standards of "defining" vs. "notable", and the higher standard generally applies to categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - strangely, the real life Hollywood community really does discuss these "awards". I have seen CAA cover letters from agents which would describe the work as being that of a Golden Raspberry winning director. Obviously in jest, but they are semi important nonetheless.Donmike10 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete As someone who has created a number of awards categories himself and has since seen the error of his ways, even I can't imagine creating these. As noted above, these are often mentioned "in jest." With Oscar and Nobel winners offered as a model of what should be categorized at WP:OC, the nominated categories fall far below that standard. We look back on the lives of actors and remember them as Oscar winners. Ditto for Nobel winners. Can one say the same for the Razzies? No. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Golden Raspberry Award winners. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

In the case of award categories, consensus is and has been to listify except when the award is among the highest recognitions in the field. The Golden Raspberry Award does not reach that standard, and being a recipient of the Award does not appear to be defining for most of the people being categorized. A quick glance at the first two categories reveals numerous successful/famous (or infamous) actors, musicians, and entertainers who are widely known for their work or (not-so-)personal life: Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, Neil Diamond, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers (actor), Prince (musician), Adam Sandler, Sylvester Stallone, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Halle Berry, Sandra Bullock, Mariah Carey, Bo Derek, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Madonna (entertainer), Liza Minnelli, Demi Moore, the Spice Girls, and Sharon Stone. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - and for heavens sake make sure they are carrying the Comedy project project tag on their talk pages when they are saved - untagged articles like that reflect badly upon the keep vote - if they cannot even get the project tags up - why laugh? SatuSuro 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, if really necessary preceded by creating articles where none already exist. Non-defining characteristic. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify, then delete - It seems to be undisputed that the award is notable (as a topic) and noteworthy (within articles). However, the standard for categorization is much higher: a characteristic must be defining for the subjects being categorized. Obviously, if a characteristic is not noteworthy, then it is almost certainly not defining; however, the reverse is not true: a characteristic can be noteworthy but still non-defining.
 * Listify (where necessary) then delete -- That is what we almost always do with award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motown songwriters and producers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Split and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Motown songwriters and producers to Category:Motown artists (where applicable), Category:American songwriters (or an appropriate subcategory) and Category:Record producers (or an appropriate subcategory).
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I'm aware, we don't categorize songwriters or producers by record label, especially not mushed together into one category like this. From reviewing the contents of the category, I'd also say this is misleading, as many of these individuals simply contributed a written song or record production for Motown, some extensively, but aren't necessarily signed to the record label. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Feather River Route
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * feather river route


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure that we need to start categorizing features of certain rail routes. While some tunnels and bridges are notable, does that notability extend to the rail route?  I could see how rail routes are notable for using a notable bridge, but I suspect there are too few cases of this to start that category tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but some sort of category might be useful here. As is though, it's OC and both too broad and too limited at the same time. Perhaps Category:Structures of the Western Pacific Railroad might be useful? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed


 * upmerge but in general the difficulty in using railroad categories is that mergers have more or less obliterated these. Probably pages ought to go to the relevant "by state" categories. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles are all in some state category with the exception of Feather Headwaters. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In consideration of that I think deletion is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Kmusser (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Single-game achievements in baseball, part 2
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1. Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In light of the previous discussion Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12 the appropriateness of these categories is suspect. A list article would be more useful to readers, and probably already exists. ―cobaltcigs 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * major league baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter
 * major league baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game
 * Delete Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter, but Strong Keep Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game (although perhaps with a less unwieldy name). Perfect games are distinctly rare (only 20 times in MLB history) and are defining characteristics, I'd think. No-hitters, on the other hand, happen many times a year. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Being distinctly rare does not change the nature of the latter category. Otherwise, why not Category:Major League Baseball players who completed an unassisted triple play?  I would also, in fact, argue that not many people, Don Larsen aside, are defined by having thrown a perfect game.  And even Larsen is known for when he threw it, not that he did it. Resolute 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Both as defining characteristics of the players involved. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep perfect game category, weak keep the no-hitter category. I would definitely consider pitching a perfect game a defining characteristic, while pitching a no-hitter is less so, but still defining enough to keep as a category, IMO. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game as defining. Delete Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter or listify if anyone wants to keep the information here that is, one would guess, contained in many books. I could even be persuaded to change my keep vote since while the pitcher pitched the game, unless he strikes out everyone, the game required 8 others to not make any major errors to make the game perfect. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the no-hitter one; ambivalent about the perfect-game one. I don't think pitching a no-hitter is a defining characteristic since they are relatively commonplace. Perfect games are very rare, so I suppose it could be said to be defining for the pitcher, but I'm not sure why a list for both of these wouldn't be more appropriate as well as sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Delegates to the Republican National Convention
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * delegates to the republican national convention


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I bring this category for discussion because Category:Delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention was recently deleted. This category is for people who have attended any of the Republican National Conventions since 1856. On balance, it seems relatively non-defining: No one is notable because they were a delegate to a Republican National Convention. Notability always derives for some other reason, and this is just one thing they did in their career.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as not much of a distinction. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as non-defining. People become notable because they are already known; they do not become notable by being delegates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delegates as non-defining. Disagree with Black Falcon that categories need to provide notability. Hekerui (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that, although I realize that in trying to be concise I may have failed to convey my idea. We should not, of course, categorize only by those characteristics which are a source of notability (else we would have no categories for nationality, time period, and many others). A better way of expressing my intended point would be: for most delegates, the fact of having served as a delegate tends to be secondary to their notability, and it is not an event which defines their life or for which they are remembered. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree very much. Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.