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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT. This is the only "Songs covered by..." category on Wikipedia. Funk Junkie (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if an artist covers a song then it's an "[Artist] song". There are also a number of precedents out there if anyone cares to dig (I don't). Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could sombebody please explain how it is that "Cat:Songs covered by Artist Xyz" is OCAT,but "Cat:Songs by Artist Xyz" is not OCAT? I'm having a hard time seeing any real difference. This is a serious question -- not rhetorical. Cgingold (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for me and not the nominator, whether or not it meets any definition of overcategorization it's redundant. There is IMHO no encyclopedic value in distinguishing between songs based on original vs cover status. Someone interested in researching songs by artist should be able to find them in a single category instead of having to dig for an original songs cat and a cover songs cat. Why have two categories for songs recorded by or associated with a particular artist when one is sufficient? Otto4711 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you misconstrued the intent of my question, Otto. I'm really raising a fundamental question about "Cat:Songs by Artist Xyz", which seems to represent the flip side of "Cat:Artists by Song Abc". In other words, "performance by performer" -- the inverse of "performer by performance". The point is, there are an awful lot of songs that have categories for multiple artists. Is this really something we want to be doing? Cgingold (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Otto. Cgingold's point is a good one: a song such as My Way would certainly be OCATed if it were to be placed in "[Artist] song" for every artist who recorded it. And yet it would seem a little minimal to place it only in Category:Paul Anka songs (as he co-wrote it). Yesterday is another example (3000 recorded cover versions!). Occuli (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response -- it's something of a conundrum. I'm wondering if the answer might be to establish some sort of "notability" standard to define when these "Songs by Artist Xyz" categories should be used -- though I suspect that's easier said than done. Perhaps the WikiProject could take this up. Cgingold (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category serves only to duplicate the list of episodes included in Horrid Henry (TV Series). Stepheng3 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcat and the main article was recently deleted for not being notable. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crypto-spam in any case. It's not the role of Wikipedia to be an echo chamber for corporate fidelity programs. Pichpich (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:Former television stations in Houston, Texas[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, This is a subcategory of "Defunct terrestrial television stations in the United States". It contains one entry, KVVV-TV, with no reasonable expectation of significant growth given the artificially-narrow geographical constraint in its naming. Effectively, this category is as narrow as, for instance, a Channel 5 television stations in Glendive, Montana category were one created. No other individual city has its own category for dead local TV stations, they're all in the country-level "defunct television station" category. KVVV-TV (Houston TX, UHF 16, defunct) should be put back into "Defunct terrestrial television stations in the United States" with the others, reverting the editor who removed that category from this page. No reason to single this one out among so many others. 66.102.80.212 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I have no problem with by state and by city categories, but right now there does not appear to be a need for this level of breakout. So no objection to creating a by state series when it makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
double upmerge to Category:Television stations in Houston, Texas and per nom. Once a TV station, always a TV station; so, no reason to exclude it from the location-based parent cat just because it is defunct. Neier (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:SPEEDY DELETE, miscapitalized, already emptied and replaced by properly named category. Postdlf (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete should be moved to the speedy candidates. Pichpich (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:no clear consensus here on what exactly to do, though there is consensus for change, but not for a straight rename as proposed. Since category was not tagged throughout the CfD, I suggest we're better off closing this and starting from scratch. Someone please re-nominate with a solid proposal of what to do. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DeleteRename. Curent name obviously vauge and a bit gushy. Propose: Demolished country homes in the United Kingdom.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Category must be tagged. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Demolished country houses in the United Kingdom (country house does have a relevant article). Occuli (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and split - the structure, as in Category:Former buildings and structures of England, from where many could be added, divides the UK into the different home nations, so it should be split into England etc. (if there are any - several of these are Scottish), with a UK parent for sub-cats only I suppose. The 20th century timelimit should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportJohnbod: ultimately we may need to "Former buildings and structures" by type of building, but one day, not now. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about closing. Rename to? And split into what? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
