Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Restructuring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 1.Categories for Renaming

Proposal: a separate page 'CfR' should be created, that deals with requests for renaming categories. CfD should only deal with deleting categories.

  • Withdrawn

[edit] Support

  1. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. VivaEmilyDavies 15:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) per comment below
  5. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. --JuntungWu 15:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. A quick scan of CfD shows most of the page to be deletes. And of the few(er) renames, many of them would qualify for speedy (providing #3 passes). Would it help minimize the size of CfD? Obviously, yeah. But would it make that much of an impact? I'm thinking no. -Kbdank71 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Many of the things that come into CfD start as a rename and are turned into a delete or vice versa. It is not always equally obious to the proposer and everyone else what should be done. Both renames and deletes can become contentious. --ssd 05:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The subpage can be linked to both CFD and CFR in that case, with a clear notice given at the top of the subpage. — Instantnood 06:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Often a vote for delete will tend towards arguments in favour of renaming and vice versa. The two are too intertwined for separate pages. Grutness|hello? 02:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    What about object the deletion at CFD, and suggest alternative(s) for renaming. The nomination and the poll at CFR will become valid if the deletion at CFD is voted against. — Instantnood 08:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    what, you mean make things "easier" and "more streamlined" by having to deal with the same category twice, once on each page? No thank you! Grutness|hello?
  4. Creates another page folks interested in categorization issues would need to watch. -- Rick Block 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. WP:CFD is enough of a backwater in the decision-making processes of the Wikipedia that there is no need to create a tributary. BlankVerse ∅ 11:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. As above, there's not necessarily a clear distinction betwen categories that need to be renamed and deleted. Splitting that distinction between two pages will only create more work. -Sean Curtin 20:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • KBdank has a good point, but maybe candidates for speedy renaming should be kept on a separate page from CfD anyway (this separate page would be rather short and devoid of lengthy discussions, thus admins helping with renaming won't have to wade through the keep/delete votes). Radiant_* 14:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why thank you! Anyhoo, didn't someone bring up on the CfD talkpage about having two sections on CfD, one for speedy renames, one for debatable stuff? Would that help? -Kbdank71 15:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that different issues appear between CfD and CfR. Usually, CfR is concerned with what sort of categorisation scheme and format should be used (should it be "Fooian", "from Foo", "in Foo", "of Foo"?) whereas CfD usually concerns the bigger questions ("What is the point of categorisation?" "Does this deserve a category?" "Does it fit better in another scheme?" "Should a category really be subdivided?") VivaEmilyDavies 15:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2A.Create subpages for CfD

Proposal: just as VfD uses subpages for each individual discussion, and transcludes them into the main page for each day, so should CfD. This does not apply to CfR.

  • Superseded by 2C (see below)

[edit] Support

  • Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) prefer 2C below
  1. Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lochaber 15:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grutness|hello? 02:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sean Curtin 20:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Tentatively oppose. I think if #3 below passes, that will go a long way to minimizing the size of CfD. Plus, I don't think EVERY discussion needs it's own subpage; some of them are quite short. Perhaps where the discussion gets lengthy someone can move it to a subpage? -Kbdank71 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Partial oppose. I think moving to a subpage when they get large is an excellent idea. Otherwise, perhaps one subpage per day is good enough. Many categories get no discussion at all, and making a subpage would be more work than just speedy handling. --ssd 05:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Partial oppose. prefer ssd's suggestion. BlankVerse ∅ 11:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I prefer 2C below. Thryduulf 15:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  1. ssd's suggestion of separate subpages for each day would be a good compromise here - should this vote be begun again with that as a separate option? Grutness|hello? 05:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I support either the first proposed version or ssd's suggestion. Perhaps you should create it as a 2AA, 2C or 6 section instead of restarting, but I wouldn't object to a new vote if others prefer that. Thryduulf 08:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2B.Subpages for CfR

Proposal: (iff #1 passes and CfR is created) just as VfD uses subpages for each individual discussion, and transcludes them into the main page for each day, so should CfR. This does not apply to CfD.

  • Withdrawn

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

  1. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. The discussions won't get long enough on CfR to warrant a subpage. -Kbdank71 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. BlankVerse ∅ 11:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • Transclusions can put a heavy load on the server (I beleive, correct me if I'm wrong), and while useful for heavy pages like VfD and CfD, I don't feel that there will be as much benefit for what I anticipate will be the more lightly trafficed and less controversial CfR. This can of course be revisited if my prediction turns out to be wrong. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Instantnood's counterarguments at #1:oppose:2 above only hold if tis particular proposition carries. Grutness|hello? 02:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There can be exceptions, say the majority on CFR are not subpages, but for those nominated for both CFD and CFR are subpages. Or, the two things can be done separately, with notice bringing readers to the relevant section on the other page. — Instantnood 08:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • The aim of this discussion is to simplify the procedure - working out which nominations need subpages and which don't, and which need to go on one page, and which need to be moved from one to the other sounds like making it one unholy mess. For the sake of simplification, having everything on subpages or nothing on subpages is the only logical way to go. Grutness|hello? 05:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2C.Subpages by day

Proposal: (iff 2A fails) just as VfD uses subpages for each individual day, and transcludes them into the main page, so should CfD. Thus all CfD nominations created on the same day are listed together on one page.

  • Approved. I have asked User:AllyUnion to construct a bot to help here.

[edit] Support

  1. Support, but not enough for a strong support. Thryduulf 15:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Radiant_* 15:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ditto doubled. BlankVerse ∅ 21:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Di-tto, tri-tto and tetra-itto, then. Grutness|hello? 23:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Maurreen 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Lochaber 09:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (and note that SSD explicitly states in section 2A they would support subpages by day)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Kbdank71 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) I still think archiving the discussions as they get too large is a better idea.

[edit] Comment

  • A bot could be used to create them daily. Radiant_* 10:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain I understand this. Do you mean that there would be one subpage listing all the entries for a day, and that they would be transcluded onto the main page, but (unlike VfD) the individual entries would not be transcluded? Thryduulf 12:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5.Remove consolidation of renaming

Proposal: Handle renamings on talk pages of individual categories. Do not consolidate. Do not maintain central list. (Exception could be made if controversy arises, along the lines of WP:RM.)

  • Did not meet consensus.

[edit] Support

  1. Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Instantnood 13:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) - I agree with the direction, if the page grows larger and larger. But I have to oppose tentatively, as I don't see such a need at the time being.
  2. Kbdank71 15:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I'm going to agree with Instantnood. I know, I'm surprised too.  :D
  3. Thryduulf 16:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is infeasable for everyone to watch every category that might potentially get renamed.
  4. Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) I find this impractical, per comment below
  5. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC). Since only admins can rename articles, it is more practical to have a central location where they can easily find them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grutness|hello? 02:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. BlankVerse ∅ 11:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Central location works better. JuntungWu 15:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  1. Rationale: I don't understand why categories are not handled more like articles. To move an article is generally a simple matter. Decisions about articles are not normally taken to a wider audience unless there is a problem. In my view, that is both efficient and focused -- the people making the decision are more likely to care and have relevant knowledge and it will affect them more. Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Categories are much harder to move than articles are. Anyone can move an article (unless the destination has an article history), whereas only a sysop can move a category. Thryduulf 08:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if the category system was consistently named. If each category's name was decided on its talk page, the system would become divergent too easily (see #3/#4 above). Also, only admins can presently move cats, so users need some central place to get their attention. Radiant_* 10:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)