Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring

Speedy renaming has been implemented. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies.

Some people think that CfD is getting too large and unwieldy to be practical. Therefore, this page lists some proposals to alleviate that.

This is a proposed policy. This is currently open for discussion and revision. Please explain your reasoning for supporting or opposing (or abstaining). It is hoped that this process will lead to consensus; if not, a vote can be called at some point in the future.

See Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Restructuring for discussions leading to creation of this poll.

This poll ran for a week and received significant attention from people who frequent CfD. As expected, some proposals met consensual support, and some did not. I believe it would be appropriate to start implementation of those that have, and will take care of that shortly. Consider this a test run; we can always work out the kinks at a later stage. Bear in mind that this is not official policy, it is merely a procedure to alleviate the editors' work. If it doesn't, we should change it.

1.Categories for Renaming (withdrawn)

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

• Withdrawn (arguments moved to talk page)
• See proposal #6 below.

2A.Create subpages for CfD (superseded)

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• Superseded by 2C (arguments moved to talk page)

2B.Subpages for CfR (withdrawn)

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• Withdrawn (arguments moved to talk page)

2C.Subpages by day (approved)

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.

3.Speedy renaming

Proposal: certain minor renaming issues for categories should not require voting, but can be done simply by being bold. Non-admins cannot rename cats, so they will still have to list them on CfD (or CfR) but they can be processed without delay, and removed once the process is complete.

Criteria for minor renaming are limited to: 1) typo fixes, 2) capitalization fixes, and 3) conversion to singular or plural.

The page Wikipedia:Category renaming has been created to explicitly state the policy (including the 'merging' clause since it can be inferred from the original, and nobody requested it for a revote). Note that criterion #3 did not meet sufficient consensus, and is instead listed on Wikipedia talk:Category renaming for further discussion.

By its current wording, there is no delay required for speedy renaming (just as there isn't for speedy deletion; indeed, that was the point of speedy in the first place). The poll below shows some consensus to support this; if it seems impractical in the next couple weeks, we should change that.

Support

1. Strongly support. There are too many of these listed on CfD which don't need to be. It just needlessly increases the size of the page. -Kbdank71 13:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Strongly support Kdbank has it right, I think VivaEmilyDavies 15:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Lochaber 15:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. gadfium 23:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
7. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Support for criterion 2 above, but not for 1 or 3. With criterion 3, there have been recent lengthy discussions on cfd relating to exactly which correct plural should be used for some categories. Would support criterion 1 iff it specifically excluded conversions related to regional spellings (whicht he disingenuous could otherwise pass off as "typos"). Grutness|^hello? 02:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Maurreen 07:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Support 1 and 2 but strong oppose 3; singular or plural possessive use can be difficult to sort out. --JuntungWu 15:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support 1 and 2, but not 3 (that part should be a part of the addendum below). -Sean Curtin 20:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support

1. See my comments at (3) above. Iff those conditions are met, I see a separate page as a reasonable idea, or - better still - if separate daily subpages are created, Candidates for Speedy Renaming could have their own single subpage of cfd. Grutness|^hello? 23:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Some (very few) renames are redirected to something better than what the original poster suggested. However, I think even those cases can be decided in two days. --ssd 05:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. The listing should be noted as a speedy candidate, and there should be a minimum 24 hr. listing, with deletion/renaming only if there are no objections. This criteria can only be used for true typos, and not for UK <-> US spelling changes.

   With several people expressing objections to criteria #3 among the Support votes, and with some of the Comments suggesting conditional support, I am changing my vote to Oppose since I think that this proposal needs to be reworded and then revoted. BlankVerse ∅ 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• I think that a template should be placed on the category pages involved with this to allow anyone to object if they want - similar to the {{db|reason}} for speedy deletions. Perhaps {{cfr-quick|target}}. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If they are to be renamed without delay, will anyone have time to object? -Kbdank71 13:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There will inevitably be some lag. If poeple are concerned then maybe a minium lag time (24/48 hours perhaps) could be introduced. If anyone does object it should immediately cease to be eligable for spped renaming and should go to a normal CfR (or CfD if #1 doesn't pass). Thryduulf 14:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think this should echo the process for WP:CSD. There needs not be a minimum lag, as long as one person proposes the rename and another implements it. Articles are routinely 'rescued' from CSD and placed on regular VfD. The same would apply to CSR and CfR. Radiant_* 14:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's already a lag. According to the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies, categories can be deleted after 2 days if there are no objections. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made. However, that's for deletes. I'll agree with Radiant! for renames.
  • Agree with Thryduulf. — Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Is there any case in which a category should be singular? Maurreen 04:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. When it is about something rather than listing somethings. --ssd 05:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Care to propose changing Category:Italy to Category:Italies? :) Grutness|^hello? 07:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Right. Category:Italy is about italy. If there was more than one Italy, there should be a Category:Italies or something listing them. Or a list page if there's just a few. Or something like that. --ssd 00:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merging

If a category qualifies for a 'speedy rename', and the name to which it should be renamed already exists, then the contents of the former should be added to the latter (a 'speedy merge'). Redirects from one cat to another do work (but if they are considered harmful, speedy deletion would be appropriate). This seems an obvious corrolary, comments welcome. If people are unsure, it can be added as proposal #7. Radiant_* 14:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this. --Kbdank71 15:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ditto. It makes perfect sense. Thryduulf 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4.Speedy renaming addendum

Proposal: (iff #3 passes) if the consensus decides on a naming standard for categories (such as Philosophers from Greece vs. Greek philosophers), violation of that standard will be added to the speedy renaming criteria.

Support

1. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Strongly support. -Kbdank71 13:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
4. Strongly support VivaEmilyDavies 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. gadfium 23:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
7. Iff a definite consensus has been reached. -Sean Curtin 20:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. As I said for #3, I think that there should be a 24 hr. waiting period before deletion/renaming. Category names should reflect Wikipedia:Naming conventions, as well as Wikipedia:Categorization (and the later article needs to be updated). BlankVerse ∅ 11:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Assuming all the comments above (2 day lag, maybe one day for previous consensus) and below (criteria for consensus) are taken into consideration. --ssd 05:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

We need to be define where the consensus has to emerge. What counts as consensus?

• The fact that there is a naming convention? - Definitely
• The fact that CfR/CfD has had a thorough debate on it in the past - Slightly less definitely - CfR shouldn't become a back-street producer of naming conventions?
• The fact that CfR/CfD has made a change of that type in the past (e.g. has, in a test case, said "X in Foo" is the correct format for something - thereafter "X in Foo" should be regarded as the correct format - without real debate, just saying "for consistency" without considering deeper reasoning) - Even less definitely
• The fact that the overwhelming majority of subcategories of the parent category are in a particular form? - Dubious. It would cut down workload, but sometimes proposed changes in line with this don't actually get through CFD. The recent CFRs such as "People from the Philippines" to "Filipino people" apparently failing is a case in point - I wish that batch had gone through successfully, but the fact that it did provoke a debate (apparently for the first time) about how the subcategories of "People by nationality" should be listed, and only if debates like that get provoked is there logical argument about what should be the preferred style. If we accepted "well, 90% of categories like this are in a different form, so lets speedy this one" then that sort of debate - which may be positive and useful - will occur only when somebody nominates "majority" categories to turn into "minority" form, which frankly takes a lot of nerve even if the categorisation is clearly illogical and the result only of groupthink.

Here is a place where I would be prepared to draw a dividing line. Suppose e.g. there is a query about "Lamborgian cities" vs "Cities in Lamborg" vs "Cities of Lamborg". On CfR/CfD, one such instance is converted from a minority form ("of Foo") to a majority form ("in Foo"). This decision should then be posted in the talk page for Category:Cities by country. Thereafter, if "Category:Blibbian cities" is created, it can be put up for, say, {{SpeedyCfR|Category:Cities in Blib|See Category talk:Cities by country; "Lamborgian cities"-> "Cities in Lamborg"}} (assuming {{SpeedyCfR|Target|Reason}} format). I think all such speedy CFRs should have a reference either to a naming convention or to a previous CFR decision, and the logical place to put the a reference-point to the latter is the parent category of the category where there has been a previous decision. VivaEmilyDavies 16:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Some excellent points here. I do believe that (iff #4 passes) all established naming conventions should be adopted for speedy renaming. For other cases I would prefer if it were discussed on a nearby talk page (or in the relevant root category). If such discussion has taken place earlier, it should be briefly re-opened to see if there are any objections to its adoption; there are expected to be none, but it serves to double check if the discussion reached consensus, or was simply abandoned. Radiant_* 20:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• If this is adopted, I'd prefer going with only standardized naming conventions spelled out in some guideline/policy/Wikiproject. Maurreen 06:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5.Remove consolidation of renaming (no consensus)

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.(arguments moved to talk page)

6.Separate page for speedy renaming (implemented for now)

Proposal: (iff 3 passes) Categories marked for speedy renaming should be put on a separate page (since arguably, anything listed here can be quickly taken out again, which is not the case for regular CfD). If a rename is contested or incorrectly put on speedy, it should be moved to the main CfD page.

• Implemented as a transcluded page from CfD for now, for reason of consistency with the daily subpage per proposal 2C. This way, people with too much time on their hands can 'watch' this subpage. We'll see how it works out, consensus is a bit unclear because this proposal was added late in the voting process.

Support

1. If this page is transcluded onto the main page, so that those interested in both can see both, and those not need not. Thryduulf 15:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Lochaber 09:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Radiant_* 09:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Kbdank71 14:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) We can probably do the speedy renames just as easily via a new section at the bottom of CfD, as opposed to a different page.
2. ssd 02:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) I don't think there's so many renames that mixing them will be such a problem. Also, things that appear to be speedy renames frequently get better suggestions, and separating the pages will spread the places people have to read to make such suggestions. Really, though, someone who does the cleanup job afterwards should comment in on this.
   • Things that are speedy renames should not frequently get better suggestions - that's the whole point of speedying them. Radiant_* 09:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

     I agree! But the problem is, when they get an objection, they obviously should not be on speedy rename. Actually, I'd propose that only empty categories should get speedyed, except that then people would empty the categories before discussion. Actually, they already do that, despite instructions not to. --11:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

     • But categories should not be emptied for renaming (only, potentially, for deletion, and this is not about speedy deletion of categories). Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

3. Sean Curtin 22:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• See my new comments under Criteria #3, Oppose. I personally think that Criteria #3 needs to be reworded and revoted BEFORE this criteria can be voted on. BlankVerse ∅ 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)