Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 3

message: I came here for "the proposal, justification, and discussion" of :Category:Numerical prefixes' deletion, but it is not here. Where is it now? Hyacinth 21:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerical prefixes

message: WP:SFD is now up and running. I'm adding a template box to the tfd and cfd pages to keep people here informed of what's going on over there (whether this continues or not will mainly depend on how well sfd runs). Grutness...wha? 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub types for deletion

message: Why was this listed for undeletion before it was even deleted?  --Kbdank71 16:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The deadline for the debate had passed but the action had not yet been taken. Remember deleting a category isn't like deleting an article: you have to remove the categorisation from all the articles in it. It therefore makes undeleting a removed category almost impossible unless someone can remember which articles were in it, which means that an undeletion debate must be started without delay. Also, there was no really good reason for deleting the category, the deletion debate was nonexistent and most of the voters admitted their ignorance as to what the category meant. David | Talk 10:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Causes célèbres]] 

message: *:Category:Soviet history -> :Category:History of the Soviet Union
**Objection here. This category covers not only the Soviet Union, which starts in 1922, but the Sovet period of Russia 1917-1922 as well. This is exactly what it is: Soviet history. And I strongly object . mikka (t) 18:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from CfD 

message: What a pity I missed the fact that the eminently useful :Category:Proto-languages was listed here; it got deleted and its content absorbed by :Category:Proposed languages on a 3:2 vote (which doesn't sound like rough consensus to me). As far as I've been able to determine, the term proposed language is a Wikipedia neologism that's not used in historical linguistics. I can't discern any difference between proposed language and the well-established term proto-language, and have recommended that the former be merged with the latter. By the same token :Category:Proposed languages should be renamed :Category:Proto-languages. --Angr/ 20:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-languages and proposed languages 

message: Is there a reason why this cat has not been renamed to :Category:Economy by country, as agreed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_8#Category:National_economies, but to :Category:Economy by nation? — Sebastian (talk) 19:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
*Hm, that's strange, I thought 'by country' was the standard. Let's see, Kbdank71 made that, I'm sure he had a good reason? Radiant_>|< 08:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Hm, that is strange.  Apparently I went by the cfr notice on the original category, which was indeed a rename to "Economy by nation".  Unfortunately for me, I'm the one who put that cfr notice up, since there wasn't one when it was listed on CfD.  I don't really know why that happened.  I accept responsibility for the error(s).  I'll fix it today.  --Kbdank71 13:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:National economies 

message: I just noticed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_5#Category:Professional_associations_and_Category:Professional_organizations that the headline changed because one of the categories was renamed as a result of the process. This way, the discussion doesn't make sense anymore in the archive. This could be solved by either replacing such links with plain text before a category gets renamed, or by not using links in the headline at all. — Sebastian (talk) 19:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
*Woah, what changed?  I read through the discussion in question, and it made sense to me.  --Kbdank71 19:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous question re links to cats in headlines 

message: Hi, I realize that I am late in showing up here, but I only noticed that "Category:Student fraternities" was up for deletion  when it was changed on an article page I was watching after it was deleted . It has since been merged into "Category:United States student societies". I wasn't watching the cat page and was thus unaware of the vote, but I would like to object on the following grounds:
# Many of the organizations now listed in "Category:United States student societies" are currently international, with chapters in Canada and sometimes Mexico or abroad (I know Sigma Phi Delta has a chapter in Bangalore, India). The new name is therefore innacurate, even if most of them were originally founded in the U.S.
# Since merging, the categorization scheme does not distinguish between fraternities and sororities. This makes it exponentially less useful.
I recognize that the old scheme had its problems, but the new one is far worse. I also know that this vote is closed. How should I (we) reopen it so that we can figure out a better scheme for categorizing these societies? -Lommer | talk 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student Organizations Categories 

message: A new user has (almost single-handedly) created a whole category of articles on a newish religion called Ayyavazhi.  He's made a number of the usual mistakes, and the latest is this now-well-populated category.  I'm not sure what it should be moved to — could anyone help? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ayyavazhi Related Topics]] 

message: I propose that the following be added to the Speedy Renaming criteria:
*Any category that includes an abbreviation (such as "U.S."); the words should instead be spelled out. This does not apply if the abbreviation has become the more common term, such as "DJ".
Note that this conforms with Wikipedia:Categorization#General naming conventions.
Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
*As much as I agree with that, I think it would be a bad idea, as there are people who feel that, regardless of conventions, some things are better abbreviated.  There was a comment as such in a recent nomination.  --Kbdank71 13:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Renaming 

message: Twice, I've wanted to nominate categories for deletion or renaming before anybody else had done so for that day. The first time, I tried to make a section for the new day, and did it incorrectly. The second time, I simply put my proposals in the previous day's subpage. Both times, someone else corrected what I had done. In order to avoid making any more work for anyone else, I would like to know how to create a CfD subpage for a new day. Could someone please enlighten me?
Thanks, NatusRoma 04:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a new day's subpage 

message: We really need to do something project-wise about this, if for no other reason but consistency.  On Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 7, many people voted to keep the U.S. Categories and totally ignored the U.S. television networks, which made it through with a consensus of rename to United States.  --Kbdank71 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US v United States 

message: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27 for the :Category:Former students of St Catharine's College listing.  I moved it from speedy because I felt that adding "Cambridge" to the category name did not fall under the speedy guidelines.  User:Dbiv disagreed, stating it was a typo.  Considering the speedy guidelines give as a typo example, Typo fixes (e.g. Brdiges -> Bridges), I'd like to get opinion as to what constitutes a typo.  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Essentially, a word is not a typographical error; those are errors of letters. That's the best phrasing I can think of right now, but it can probably be improved. Maurreen 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree too. A typo is a slip-of-the-keys, not something you would have to wilfully insert. That said, adding Cambridge to the cat name is a no-brainer in this case, but it should still go to CfD. -Splash 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would class a typo as including an obvious mistake, something that isn't a question of policy and doesn't add or detract anything from the substance. In this case, every single other Cambridge college has a Category called "Former students of X College, Cambridge" except Catz which has "Former students of St Catharine's College". It's so obviously a one-off mistake and so obviously not a big issue so why bother to have a long debate on whether to change it? Just wastes everyone's time, doesn't it? David | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wastes no time of those that don't participate. It's far from unheard of for a CfD to get no votes other than the nomination (and, perhaps, one other) and to consequently be approved. Sometimes an innocuous looking change raises a wider issue, so only the narrowest of cases go to speedy. Adding a word to the title is not in the examples given. I could easily stir up a debate here, for example: rename all such cats to :Category:Foo College of the University of Cambridge. Thus we have the CfD procedure. -Splash 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that in this particular case, it was most likely a mistake and a no-brainer, but the speedy criteria do not handle adding words, no matter how obvious it is.  And Splash is correct.  Someone may come up with a better name which wouldn't happen if it was speedied.  --Kbdank71 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a typo? 

message: The above discussion ended with a no consensus.  There were, at my count, 3 votes to rename, 4 votes to listify.  Disregarding this, User:Dbiv went ahead and renamed the category anyway, and refused to correct this User_talk:Dbiv#Former_Students_CFD.  Should this just be reverted?  --Kbdank71 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a No Consensus? 

message: A number of cats were listed in the main section by User:Agentsoo today that were speedy candidates. That's not really a problem, but the admin that speedied them didn't wait the two days that Wikipedia:Category renaming requests. On the other hand, the speedy rename section says "proceed without delay". We should abolish one or the other instruction. -Splash 16:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delay? 

message: I'm thinking that our stub categories could be complemented by "Help" categories. That is, we could have something like "Foo articles that need help" or "... need special help", if they need cleanup or wikification or are disputed, etc.
That way these articles (and possibly categories) might be more likely to get the attention of people who care more and know more about the given subject. 
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Maurreen (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help categories

message: I've copied this here from a current CfD debate, as it's of much wider significance:
*Kbdank71 closed the CfD debate (two voted for delete, no-one for anything else) as no consensus, which is why I reproposed it. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The California  and Southern California WikiProjects are working to improve the organization and naming of the various categories under :Category:California. Unfortunately, there really isn't a whole lot of guidance that I could find for Wikipedia categories., Especially for naming, all I could find was Wikipedia:Categorization#General naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). I know, however, that between this WikiProject and WP:CFD there has developed a number of naming and organization conventions that do not seem to be documented anywhere. I would appreciate it if someone could look at the current organization of the California categories (located at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/categories) and then make some recommendations about reorganizing and renaming the categories.
What I see as one of the biggest problems are all the "Los Angeles" categories. One problem is that there are some overlapping or duplicate categories. The other problem is that most of the categories are just "Los Angeles" and do not make it clear if they are for the city, county, or metropolitan area. I think that all of those categories need to be renamed to indicate which Los Angeles they are referring to . BlankVerse ∅ 01:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! California categories 

message: Warning:  has been putting  templates on a bunch of categories, but hasn't put nominated any of them for renaming at CFD. The user is also recategorizing articles without seeking consensus. BlankVerse ∅ 04:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Ddespie@san.rr.com 

message: The [edit] link for sections is broken.  The Discussions edit links point off to Log locations.  And the section which pops up to edit does not match what is displayed.  Someone transclude something?  (SEWilco 16:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD section edits broken 

message: I've recently (last two days) been working through a bunch of empty categories, putting a bunch up for delete (on the page for the 23rd).  I then reread the criteria for Speedy, and simply being Empty is sufficient.  So I've since put a bunch more up for speedy deletion, and the first group of such have since been deleted (2nd group hasn't been handled, at this point).
But watching the pages I put up for regular deletion, several have prompted interesting debates about their existence.  I have no personal strong preference, other than to clean things up, so if a proper use for them exists, and the categories being placed for deletion spurs action to make them useful, great.  I'm also in no hurry about the deletion of most of these pages.  So that said, I'm inclined to stop using the speedy deletes for most of them (all but 100% obvious capitalization errors or offensive ones), and resume tossing them up for regular deletion.  Even a couple of pages I was certain were misspellings have turned out to be debatable as to whether they, or the other spelling, is the proper one.  (Whichever way is decided, the debate is for the good, IMHO)
So anyway, I'm tossing this up here for response.  Mainly, does anyone have any problem with my tossing empty categories up for regular deletion, when technically they qualify for speedy?  That way, they at least get more eyes on them, and any other special cases can be caught. TexasAndroid 20:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, basically, the relationship between WP:CSD and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies needs harmonising. The latter imposes odd rules like "can't delete an empty cat for 30 days after a single objection" whilst we are allowed to speedy an empty cat after 24 hours of emptiness — without any particular requirement that it sit somewhere visible for 24 hours. And how do you tell how long a cat has been empty for anyway, apart from the nominator's timestamp — how do you know it hasn't been repopulated, then quietly depopulated by an unhappy nominator? Empty cats are routinely added to the 7-day-queue and, as you say, some good debates ensue, although periodically one particular admin comes along and speedies a few under the 24-hour rule. Which I suppose all suggests you can do it either way, but the propensity to generate discussion should be respected. And we should work out the rules for speedying categories better. There is some related discussion of speedy renaming at Wikipedia talk:Category titles, if you fancy a look. -Splash 20:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy vs regular deletes 

message: Speedy renaming is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming. Maurreen (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy renaming

message: Does correcting a misspelled category name qualify for speedy renaming? I just noticed a category for Villareal CF players (a Spanish football (soccer) club). However, the correct name for the club (and its home town) is Villarreal. I'm an admin, so I could do the rename, but I don't know if it meets the criteria. — Dale Arnett 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're normally listed here. Maurreen (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on speedy renaming criteria

message: While I appreciate the need to archive off old discussions, it's a bit annoying that these links end up breaking.  In particular, when emptying a category that there was consensus to delete or rename, I like to read the discussion to make sure I know what it is that I'm touching.  When those discussions aren't on the main page anymore, I have to start binary-searching the archives by each day in order to find the archived vote (unless there's some better way to do this, that I'm not aware of.  "Reading WP:CFD every day and memorizing the conversations" doesn't count.)
To make matters worse, the indices on the archive page aren't in sync.  To take a current example, the discussion on :Category:Marvel Universe Characters can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 25 but is not in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 August index; I had to go through August day by day (thankfully, backwards) until I found it.
One simple step that might help would be to put a link to the actual discussion archive page in the "To be emptied or moved" section, next to the article being deleted.  An even better solution would be for the link in the  templates to have the appropriate link, instead.  But I'd settle for the former.
Am I the only person who has this problem? Nandesuka 05:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are looking for a debate on a particular category just go to it's page (deleter or not) and click "What links there", you'll find a link to the appropriate CFD page there. That said coding the link to point directly at the appropriate page (like is beeing done on VDF would probably not hurt, although it might be technically difficult seeing as the link is dynamicaly generated and contain a date, if you add  or whatever to the template I'm guessing it will just get replaced in the template itself and result in all links pointing to the same day). --Sherool 13:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See this page's entry on the category for deletion page...JUST KIDDING" 

message: I just ran across two problems after doing some cleanup here with Pearle.  1.) Category:Environment was supposed to have been merged into two different categories, not just dumped into one.  2.) Category:Simpsons_actors was supposed to have been converted into a list, not just deleted.  In both cases, the instructions in the "Cleanup overhead" section did not mention these complexities.  Fortunately, both omissions were caught and are being repaired.  Please be careful when you are closing discussions to note such things, so our bots don't upset a dozen people when they do the wrong thing.  Thanks!  Beland 04:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing debates carefully 

message: Due to a request made by Radiant!, I have wrote a script that moves the articles and categories in the incorrect category to the correct one that is using the categoryredirect. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NekoDaemon and the template categoryredirect 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Updating_the_section_on_category_duplications.  There is a proposal to update the categorization pollicy at Wikipedia:Categorization.  The proposal would remove the following section:
:An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in :Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in :Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in :Category:Deism.
and replace it with this:
:Normally, an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in :Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in :Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. Duplication is warranted when the set of subcategories are incomplete, when an article is the topic article for a category, and in a few special cases when it just makes common sense.  For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories
Please discuss here.  Thanks.  -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category duplications 

message: Since this is a deletion process and, as such, is within scope to VfU, those that participate here might be interested in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. This is considering expanding the scope of VfU to include review of all decisions on deletion process whether the result was delete or notdelete. -Splashtalk 22:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The scope of VfU 

message: I wonder if categories in :Category:History images shouldn't be renamed from 'Country history/historical images' into 'History/historical images related to country'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There fine as they are. The alternative is longer but not clearer in my opinion. Or maybe even less clear - a picture of George III is related to the United States, but it is not an "American historical image".  Osomec 11:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename them? 

message: The naming conventions and some new rules pertaining to "by country" category naming (and renaming) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) are now official policy (by consensus).  user:Who has suggested all categories that may be affected by a change to a "by country" naming convention must be tagged with an apprpriate  tag for due notice.  It's not obvious to me that this is necessary in these cases and the rules at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) are currently silent on this.  I propose cfr-tagging not be required in these cases, and we clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and WP:CFD accordingly. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I only requested that standard Cfd entries be tagged. I was making the comment before I realized you listed them as speedy. I do not believe that requires a tag. ∞Who?¿? 16:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With further thought however, Rick Block had mentioned large scale renames. On the small scale, speedy renames has been fine w/o the Cfr tag. I am unsure how users would react if they disagree with just one of the hundreds that would be renamed in a group.  It may merit a discussion on pro's and con's. ∞Who?¿? 16:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If users disagree, they can propose the whole structure for renaming after it has been realigned to conform to naming conventions.  I know that is not the most efficient method, but I think it is best.  For example, many of the "Buildings and structures in Foo" categories were recently renamed to conform to conventions.  I think the whole lot should be renamed to "Structures in Foo" because buildings are structures and shorter names are preferable, but I feel that should be brought up as a separate CFR, so I didn't opose the renames that were occuring just to conform to standards. -- Reinyday, 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are two cases to consider - an individual category rename listed as a speedy to create alignment with an existing by-category convention, and a change to a by-country naming convention resulting in a "group" renaming that may affect hundreds of individual categories.  IMO, speedies should never require CFR tagging.  If we require CFR tagging for every category affected by a change to a by-country convention we'll effectively add a lot of inertia to this process.  For example, the innocuous looking "airports of" to "airports in" change affects 126 categories.  Tagging them all would take perhaps 30 or 40 mintues - if the consensus is "no rename" then there's another 30 or 40 minutes somebody will need to spend untagging them.  The flip side of this is that change without notice is a bad thing.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with not tagging all cats involved with a , users complain that there was not due notice. This has happened several times in the past, so now rather than fixing a deleted category, Kbdank71 and my self requested that all categories be tagged. I am not speaking of the speedy renames, just the standard ones.  Also, I can easily add  tags with my bot, if we so decided to tag the large speedy rename umbrella noms discussed above. ∞Who?¿? 09:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the rush? Some of them have been around for over a year, so it doesn't matter much if they then take 7 days to get renamed rather than 2. It's better to have a proper look at each one. There are sometimes good reasons for exceptions, eg the unfortunately named "physicians" categories I have just nominated for renaming.  They are standard, but I think they are wrong. Under your proposal :category:English doctors would be eligible for speedy renaming and might become :Category:English physicians before anyone spotted the mistake. Osomec 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't because it hasn't been established that doctors→physicians or vice-versa is a speedy criterion. If we were seeking a speedy criterion for it, then it would need to be carefully evaluated and described in advance, and then we could proceed to execute the decision without delay. There's no need to panic over things that aren't being done. Also, see my longer message below which I copy-pasted from the other page. -Splashtalk 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If we have a convention in place, we should indeed be able to speedy said categories.  I see where user:CalJW is having trouble with it.  We shouldn't be American English-ing an international encyclopedia, and yeah, mistakes will happen.  That said, speedies have two days for objections.  There are enough people at CfD who would notice it.  And if by chance something does get by, it's not hard to fix it.  We have bots for that sort of thing.  --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two days is not enough due to the low level of visitors on the page and the lack of prominence of the speedy section. I never looked at it until recently. The assumption is that it is for totally non-controversial moves, but this proposal will change that. I don't think it is enough to just assume that people will make appropriate speedy nominations nearly all the time. So far there is a 0% success rate - 0 out of 2. CalJW 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Rick Block is quite correct. The discussion (which I spent an inordinate amount of time debating with others) was clear that the principles we established, given on the main page, were to be viewed as speedies unless someone objected. We didn't actually construct a new speedy mechanism for cats, because we lost some of our core editors (and the proposal, in a refactoring). So they are speedies, but as with all speedies on CfD there's a 48 hour delay as it says at the top of that section, to allow time for objections on reasonable grounds. As ever, you'd have to have a good reason for it. I don't think there would be a problem with de-speedying certain, individual entries from the main page, after discussion here. So if the transport one conflicts with a consensual arrangement elsewhere, we need to talk about it. Equally, if there was one particular cat that needed, for some extenuating reason, to be different to the rest within a speedy-group, we can talk about it — if it's that obvious, it shouldn't be hard to give it a green light. But we don't need to just go excising the bits of policy we don't like, or I shall take to task with a few choice ones of my own, elsewhere! -Splashtalk 14:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an argument for inertia. Most policies were agreed by very small groups of people. They aren't necessarily right. I should point out that due to my current work completing the top-tier categorisation of all of the national menus in the world (I've finished about 40 and started work on another 20 so far) the change I want will impose far more work on me than on anyone else. And I am planning to follow up by going through all the "categories by country", so it will be me doing much of the extra work there too. CalJW 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As another participant, I can confirm that we consensually agreed on the following:
*All categories whose subcategories are categories by country (roughly all categories that are members of category:categories by country) shall have a naming convention which will apply to all of their subcategories. The naming conventions will be listed at Wikipedia:Category titles and should generally follow the guidelines specified on that page. Conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as "speedy renaming" CFD criteria. Changing these conventions shall require a CFD renaming consensus.
It is regrettable this aspect was not placed on the front page, the reason for which was probably fatigue, this was a long and arduous discussion. Is the above clause disputed, or is there still consensus on it? Hiding  talk 19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that, in the absence of consensus to change, it stands. That does not preclude the kind of discussions I mentioned, nor indeed the complete abolition of the scheme: but again, only through consensual discussion. We should try to keep this in one place - I'm having to cross post everything! -Splashtalk 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFR tagging for renaming by-country categories 

message: Twice User:Dbenbenn has bypassed CfD.  Special:Undelete/Category:District_of_Columbia
* September 13 2005: emptied several categories despite a recent decision to not delete  and immediately marked them for speedy deletion (violation of CSD#2: 24 hour waiting period). Claims to have left a timestamp someplace of when 24 hours they would actually be CSD candidates.   Person doing deletion didn't follow guidelines either.
* September 25 2005: again emptied several District of Columbia categories and personally speedy deleted them immediately.
# :Category:District of Columbia
# :Category:Washington, District of Columbia
# :Category:History of the District of Columbia
# :Category:Images of District of Columbia
# :Category:Government of the District of Columbia
# :Category:Cities in District of Columbia
—(SEWilco 16:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if others agree with SEWilco, I'll accept that I was wrong.  But I think the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 15#Category:Washington, D.C. to Category:Washington, District of Columbia was perfectly clear, where only one person supported SEWilco's proposal to use the categories he listed above.  dbenbenn | talk 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There was no CfD to delete :Category:District of Columbia, :Category:Images of District of Columbia, nor :Category:Washington, District of Columbia.  (SEWilco 13:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You proposed to replace :Category:Washington, D.C. with :Category:Washington, District of Columbia.  That proposal was rejected.  Is there anyone else who thinks it's necessary to have a formal discussion about deleting Category:Washington, District of Columbia, when its use has been rejected?  dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dbenbenn Violations of CfD