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. MER-C 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cinnamates to Category:Cinnamate esters

Nominator's rationale: All of the members of the category are of esters. If pages for salts of cinnamic acid are later created, a separate category can be created for them. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The proposal is the best way to handle this. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (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: merge. MER-C 09:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fiction set in Armorica to Category:Brittany in fiction, Category:Fiction set in Roman Gaul and Category:Gallia Lugdunensis

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, not enough content to merit a separate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Until I clicked on the category, I didn't even realize there'd be anything other than Asterix. Which, while delightful, doesn't really justify a category for itself and one novel (though there could be a category for Asterix comics, characters, or other topics if they warrant and possess separate articles, which I imagine they probably could). P Aculeius (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2019 (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: merge or delete as specified. MER-C 10:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Civil Order of Alfonso X, the Wise to Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain Category:Orders of chivalry of Spain (target was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy)
• Propose merging Category:Order of Constitutional Merit to Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain Category:Orders of chivalry of Spain
• Propose merging Category:Royal Order of Spain to Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain Category:Orders of chivalry of Spain
• Propose merging Category:Order of Queen Maria Luisa to Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain Category:Orders of chivalry of Spain
• Propose deleting Category:Order of Charles III

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, four of these categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. The fifth category one only contains the eponymous article and one recipient (as a single article it should not be merged to the orders parent category). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Place Order of Charles III in Category:Orders of chivalry of Spain and Luis González-Bravo y López de Arjona in Category:Spanish knights. --Trialpears (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the International Women of Courage Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, the award is not as significant as e.g. the Nobel prize and the biography articles usually mention the prize merely in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is an American Award for those the US Secretary of State thinks worthy of it. There appears to be a list already. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2019 (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: merge. MER-C 09:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Serer royal houses to Category:Serer royalty

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles, 3 in Category:Joof dynasty which is a subcategory of Serer royalty. Unclear what distinction is made. Rathfelder (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it is a valid subcategory of Category:African royal families but possibly this can be merged per WP:SMALLCAT. It requires a dual merge in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- I doubt we need both, but I have not considered if we possibly need multiple targets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2019 (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:Sports world record setters

• Category:World record setters in athletics (track and field)
• Category:World record setters in ski flying
• Category:World record setters in speed skating
• Category:World record setters in swimming
• Category:World record setters in weightlifting

– Fayenatic London 13:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former sports world record holders to Category:Sports world record holders
• Subcategories:
  • Category:Former world record holders in athletics (track and field)
  • Category:Former world record holders in ski flying (has equivalent no parent, should go to Category:Sports world record holders)
  • Category:Former world record holders in speed skating (has equivalent no parent, should go to Category:Sports world record holders)
  • Category:Former world record holders in swimming
  • Category:Former world record holders in weightlifting

Nominator's rationale: And upmerge all of the subcategories to the same equivalent minus "Former" at the beginning. We don't categorize by current status: George Washington is in Category:Presidents of the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm going to oppose this not that it isn't a good idea, or even an original idea. We tried it before. We understand: Once a record holder, that individual is always a record holder. It is a permanently affixed status of history. Unfortunately, other people cannot follow that logic, so every time a record changes hands (I posted two records changing hands today--I deal with this stuff), every time some IP is cruising by, they will say that person is no longer the current record holder and the category will get removed. WP:RECENTISM is still a common affliction. This will turn into a policing nightmare. Hundreds of thousands of articles potentially will need to be monitored and constantly fixed. In many cases it is the individual's primary claim to notability and the entire notability of the individual might get challenged. Unfortunately the way AfDs work, idiots will gang up and will successfully delete such articles if someone isn't watching and fighting. And sometimes even that doesn't work, such is the tide of the echo chamber of deletionists. I've even been in skirmishes with the ever-present NOM, our highest volume editor, when he has been on the wrong side of an AfD, simply due to inattentiveness in his haste. It is a horrible slippery slope we are opening ourselves up to unless you can guarantee that once placed, the category is not removable. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trackinfo, Another option is to listify all and include relevant see alsos. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I support a list for this subject, that does not substitute for the category. Do not delete the category. Both of these are aids to navigation. We do not know which form of navigation a random user will choose to follow. Our job is just to make the information available to them, to guide them to the information they seek. Additionally, lists do not cross reference back to the article nearly as easily. The list wikilink needs to be manually added as a "see also" requiring again, possibly thousands of edits and a lot of reading. Some of these articles are huge, while a lot are stubs with the singular claim to notability. Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a related example of editor (and this is an IP) stupidity. Because of today's world record in the 400 hurdles, this historical article mentioning the record at the time of a race two years earlier, got changed. This is the crap we have to chase because some people just don't understand the information wikipedia presents. Trackinfo (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- We normally deplore "former" categories. However notability is not temporary. Records commonly get broken every few years, so that we need a means of recording who used to hold the record. Losing the world record does not result in the last hold suddenly ceasing to be notable. There should be scope for the use of succession boxes in the articles (if not there already). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, splitting between past and current records will require that we have to recategorize previous record holders every time a record gets broken. That is too much of a maintenance burden. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe the current design has worked well so far in that it allows for a category showing all current record holders (which is desirable navigation) and maintains a category of all previous world record holders (which is also desirable navigation). I think the George Washington example is not apt because the comparable category is not Category:Presidents of the United States (of which one member will only ever be serving) but rather Category:Heads of state (which has many actively serving members that are regularly replaced). A similar well-used category type is Category:Current sports events which gathers all the current relevant topics for readers and separates them from the historic (e.g. Category:July 2019 sports events). I don't see how the proposed change benefits the reader. I would, however, support a recasting of these categories to Category:World record breakers in athletics (track and field) and Category:Current world record holders in athletics (track and field), which fully distinguishes the two concepts for readers and avoids the issue Trackinfo mentions above as current record holders will be in both categories and most will understand that the loss of the current record does not invalidate the athlete's status as a world record breaker. SFB 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sillyfolkboy: Category:Current national leaders was deleted using this same rationale proposed by me: we shouldn't categorize by current status. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SFB's suggestion of having "World record breakers in..." categories. bd2412 T 18:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Koavf, Trackinfo, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: Thoughts and opinions on this alternative proposal to rename these categories to focus on world record breaking rather than holding? SFB 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support SFB's proposal. But I still have cynicism of the intelligence of the casual wikipedia user. While I think the words are clear, I just don't think some IP editors will be able to read. We will probably still be in constant defense of edits to remove the category. But this is the best statement to make the concept clear. I'll also ping @Montell 74: our records specialist. Trackinfo (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty sensible approach. I don't like the idea that because something is hard we shouldn't try but this would capture current and former holders of a record. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose propose merging. Support SFB's suggestion. Seems to be difficult to find a better expression than Category:World record breakers in athletics (track and field). Montell 74 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say "record setters" rather than "record breakers", since a record can be set where none has previously been recorded. However, I'm not picky about it. bd2412 T 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: Good point there, as I'd expect world record equalling performances to fall within that category too and they explicitly haven't broken a record. It's less idiomatic, but suggest to go with "World record setters in x" format for that reason. SFB 21:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support SFB's suggestion as modified to "setters." I still have low expectations for the general public to understand the nuance, but the more accurate our phrasing, the better chance we might have. I am also in agreement with SFB and others that we need to maintain the "current" record holder as a separate category because it will be more relevant to some user's searches (as opposed to having to sort through a long list including record holders from the 1920's, 1930's etc.). Trackinfo (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2019 (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.