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: Same artist, different name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Although the albums are by the same artist, the Cat Stevens albums are predominantly Pop or Rock albums, whereas the Yusuf Islam albums are Islamic music albums. His change of music is synonymous with his change of name after his conversion to Islam. I think a combination of these points deduce a notable and defining characteristic. Also, it is useful to have separate categories as the category Category:Islamic music albums only applies to a third of the subject's albums. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Koavf keeps bringing album categories to cfd with the same rationale ('same artist, different name'). I think albums should be categorised by the name on the album, ie Prayers of the Last Prophet is clearly a Yusuf Islam album. What is the objection to the present arrangement, where Category:Yusuf Islam albums is a subcat of Category:Cat Stevens albums? (It would be helpful if Koavf could link to previous discussions where a consensus has been demonstrated for this sort of merge.) Oculi (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Generally an artist who has multiple stage names should have everthing redirected to one of them. In this case, the change is so great that I think it will be better to keep both but ensure that they are crosslinked. I am going against my rule of one franchise one cateogry here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename The works of Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens are sufficiently different to justify organizing them separately, even if they are the same person. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly small category, no chance of expansion. The park has only a tangential connection to the company. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it only has 1 legitimate article. No objection to recreating later if more content is created. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (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 per many precedents. I have added two "see also" links each on the article and categories. – FayenaticLondon 23:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Eponymous category unnecessary for so little content, only the main article and two subcats. Tassedethe (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since both subcats have several entries, it seems reasonable to have a category to link them rather than have them quite separate. --Bduke(Discussion) 09:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two subcategories could probably just as easily be linked to each other. We don't really need an eponymous category to serve as a "hub" for this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 11 November 2014 (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:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name "Rochester area high schools" is ambiguous in two ways. First, there are multiple cities named Rochester (this category was created for Rochester, New York). Second, the term "Rochester area" has no set definition; it could be referring to only the city and the surrounding suburbs, or to Monroe County and the surrounding counties. This rename would address both issues, and it would also bring the category into the hierarchy established at Category:High schools in New York by county. – TMF(talk) 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle without knowing enough detail to be able to comment fully. The orignal Rochester is in Kent, not New York, so that the category is likely to pick up articles on otehr places with the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every article that is currently in the category relates to the area surrounding Rochester, New York, hence my comments above. – TMF(talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (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:Buildings and structures in Brighton, New York[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: There are two towns named "Brighton, New York;" one is in Franklin County and the other is in Monroe County. Thus, the current title is ambiguous. That said, all of the articles in this category are referring to the town in Monroe County, which is why I've suggested renaming the category for the Monroe County town. – TMF(talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Go for it, as that was my fault for not catching that when I made the category earlier this year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2014 (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.
