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 consensus with a note that this was a close call between non consensus and a keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles of the year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is second nom. of this category, the first resulting in no consensus. There are no other year-end #1 song category for any other genre or country beyond these. There is also only one song that can qualify per year under this category, so it would be much simpler, clearer and better organized in this case as a list. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella nomination for the following year-end categories much better served as lists or merely serving as a parent category. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles of the year
• Category:RPM Country Tracks number-one singles of the year
• Category:Number-one singles of the year in Canada
• Category:Number-one singles of the year in the United States
• Category:Number-one singles of the year

• Categories on number-one singles seem to be important, and since there was no consenous to delete during the first nomination, the result of the first nom means that this category had it's chance and survived and should remain that way. A clearly defining category as the #1 song of the year has a characteristic by having the most plays of the year. This song survived the first nom, and should be kept after the first nom since the result was no consenous. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All and Populate Being single of the year would appear to be a rather strong defining characteristic. That other such categories don't exist yet, only argues for their creation, not for the deletion of this category. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no policy that says deletion discussions cannot be reopened. The previous CFD should have been relisted for more comments. There has been strong discussion even on the need of the "number-one singles" categories, and "number-one albums" categories have been continually removed per CFD. A #1 song of the year does not necessarily have the most plays for the year (it may depend on sales or airplay or a combination of both). This is screaming to be listified IMO. How much simpler would it be to have a nicely sourced "List of Year-end number-one songs" (for U.S., Canada, Country songs, R&B songs, whatever) with columns for year and artist. This is just overcategorization. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate per Alansohn. I know for a fact that the country #1's are ranked by airplay as Hot Country Songs is an airplay-only chart. Also, there may be only a finite number, but it is certainly at least as defining as being a Number One song at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:48, 3 July 2009 (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) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christmas and holiday season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant clone of either Category:Winter holidays (if Kwanzaa and Hannukah are added as the creator has been doing) or of Category:Christmas. Based on article Christmas and holiday season which was almost deleted under its former name of Winter holiday season; it hasn't gotten less POV since its move, I can assure you. Lumping together these holidays is specifically a US/Canada Christian view, not a worldview and not NPOV. Violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Indifferent. The category is called "Christmas and holiday season", meaning it encompasses several holidays in the November-December timeframe. Mostly, in the media, it is called simply the "holiday season", but the term "Christmas" is included on the NPOV Wikipedia because both "holiday season" and "Christmas season" are notable worldwide. "Holiday season" or some variation thereof is used almost exclusively in the US (and by extension, Canada). Wikipedia is not US-centric or biased. I do not think there's anything wrong about listing Kwanzaa in this category, since it is often listed as one of the holidays in the "holiday season". I am not strongly in favor of this category but I thought it could just be a natural extension of the article Christmas and holiday season — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the effort, but that article has been problematic since its inception; I don't think basing a category on such an article is helpful to Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I can agree; I had noticed things calm down at that article and the "POV" tag was no longer attached to it so I thought I'd go ahead with a Category. I've changed my vote to indifferent. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh no, a reincarnation of the old "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" debate. ;-) Delete. This cat is redundant and unnecessary. There's already a Category:Christmas and a Category:Winter holidays. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Winter holidays for some may not include Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa - there's Soltice and New Year's Eve, among no doubt others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The parent article Christmas and holiday season has been around for three years, survived AfD, has about three dozen sources, defines what is included, and appears not to have been noticed by any of the voters here so far. In addition to this being a strong defining characteristic and grouping for these holidays and seasonal events, I find it humorous that this category is deemed "US-centric", while those suggesting Category:Winter holidays as an alternative don't seem to notice that the alternative is rather Northern Hemisphero-centric, when Wikipedia seems to operate in both the top and bottom of our planet. Ah, the wonderful world of CfD, where we can ignore all that occurs in the world around us, especially in article space, deleting categories because we just don't like 'em. Can someone please try to offer a policy justification for deletion that actually has some relevance instead of just tossing out acronyms? Alansohn (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to show this is purely an American category - Category:American winter holiday season perhaps. Apart from Xmas & New Year, the only contewnts are Thanksgiving and Black Friday, both exclusively American. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I must point out - at the risk of pointing out the unintended hypocrisy (or at least irony) of suggesting that these are duplicates of Category:Winter holidays and then saying that "Lumping together these holidays is ... not a worldview" - that Christmas is not a "Winter holiday" worldwide, so this is hardly a redundant clone of Category:Winter holidays. For people like me, Christmas and Hanukkah are summer holidays- Matariki is the winter holiday. As such, if anything needs changing, it is Category:Winter holidays, so as to recognise this. Johnbod's suggested change sounds a reasonable way of doing this. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted, redundant to the existing categories for Christmas and for winter holidays. If the winter holidays category needs to be worked to make it non-hemis-centric, that's a separate discussion and doesn't change the redundancy of the nominated category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In Australia and New Zealand the term "holiday season" is used to refer to either the Christmas/New Year period (from the weekend before Christmas through to the Sunday after New Year) or the school summer holidays (six to ten weeks long depending on the level of the school). As Grutness says above, this "holiday season" is not a "winter holiday" in our part of the world. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2009 (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 to Category:St Leonards School Seniors. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:St Leonards Seniors to Category:St Leonards School alumni

Nominator's rationale: WP categories naming pattern over common usage Mayumashu (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – St Leonards Seniors is the correct term, and alumni is a recent and regrettable US-import to the UK. Occuli (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename since St Leonards is ambiguous. Does this category mean notable seniors from St Leonards? No preference to Category:St Leonards School Seniors or Category:St Leonards School alumni. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:St Leonards School Seniors which is the correct name per St Leonards School#Notable seniors. Occuli (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International courts to Category:International courts and tribunals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Quite a few of these are tribunals, not courts. Generally speaking, the courts are permanent institutions; the tribunals are temporary or ad hoc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Splitting the two seems better; otherwise rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I'm not positive, but I don't think so. It could be done, but the distinction is probably too insignificant to worry about separate category schemes, IMO. Grouping them together can make sense, as long as the name is inclusive. All of the subcategories group everything together (eg, judges, prosecutors, convictions, etc.). I'm guessing that people looking for ICTY stuff and International Criminal Court stuff are probably going to assume these are together and not assume that they will be separated in categories b/c one is a court and the other a tribunal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to more accurately reflect the content of the category. A split could be considered in the future. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What about the parent categories, Category:Courts, Category:Courts by country, Category:Court systems and maybe others? Should those be moved as well, because they also contain tribunals as well as courts? Jafeluv (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I'm not sure. I know the proportion of the bodies that are tribunals in the international category is higher than it probably would be in most countries' court systems, since the international system has been a lot more ad hoc than an individual country's justice system tends to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 7 July 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Montenegro chess players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to be an out of process move to Category:Montenegrin chess players by 165.189.101.177. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ratify move (ooooh!) - the correct term. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ratify move per J. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If so, then this category should be empty and will be eligible for speedy in a nother few days. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is to get CfD to retroactively ratify the move rather than passively allowing an out-of-process move. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with the move. Using the demonym seems more appropriate here, especially since other categories in Category:Chess players by nationality use demonyms as well. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2009 (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: Administrative close. Already under discussion on 2009 Jun 29. I'll place a note there about this nomination. I've also left a note on the talk page of the user who removed the tag. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users with no Barnstars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE this category does not serve a proper purpose. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This category is already under discussion here. Looking at the category's history, it seems that the CfD notice was removed. — Σxplicit 01:56, 2 July 2009 (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.