Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Restructuring

message: Proposal: a separate page 'CfR' should be created, that deals with requests for renaming categories. CfD should only deal with deleting categories.
* Withdrawn
===Support===
#Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.Categories for Renaming

message: #Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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*Superseded by 2C (see below)
===Support===
*Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2A.Create subpages for CfD

message: *Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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*Withdrawn
===Support===
===Oppose===
#Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2B.Subpages for CfR

message: #Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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.
===Support===
#Support, but not enough for a strong support. Thryduulf 15:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2C.Subpages by day

message: #Support, but not enough for a strong support. Thryduulf 15:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Kbdank71 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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.
===Support===
#Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 5.Remove consolidation of renaming 

message: #Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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.
#Kbdank71 15:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #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)
thread_title: Comment