Category:Courtesy Earldoms in the Peerage of England[edit]
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; merge contents to parent Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of England. (If the merge target is incorrect, could someone with actual knowledge please correct it? It was not 100% clear where it should be merged to, so I assumed it would be to the sole parent category.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1. A courtesy title is not a peerage, so cannot be "in the Peerage of England" (or anywhere else). 2. This category is misleading in the extreme. Yes, "Earl of Arundel and Surrey", "Earl of Cardigan", "Earl of Sunderland" and "Earl of Wiltshire" are borne as courtesy titles by the heirs-apparent of the Duke of Norfolk and Lords Ailesbury, Blandford and Winchester. But the articles in the category deal with people who actually held these earldoms as substantive titles, not as courtesy titles. 3. If it is felt that a category for people styled as earls is useful, Category:Courtesy earls exists already. Opera hat (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming As the creator of the category, I suggest that it should instead be renamed 'Subsidiary Earldoms in the Peerage of England'. 1. A subsidiary title is a peerage - eg Earl of Arundel is held by the Duke of Norfolk. Earl of Lincoln was a peerage while held by the Dukes of Newcastle - it 'disappeared' in the 9th Earl's time and 'reappeared' when the 18th Earl succeeded. 2. The category contains Earl of Arundel, not Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel, Earl of Cardigan, not David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan etc. In each case, I suggest that the former belongs in 'Subsidiary Earldoms in the Peerage of England' and the latter in Category:Courtesy earls 3. See (2) above. Alekksandr (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the point of a subcategory at all. Though some peerages may currently be held along with a higher title, in many cases, certainly with Arundel, they have had long and distinguished histories when they were not "subsidiary" to anything, and the articles usually deal with this period of the peerage's history. So the category is still not appropriate. Opera hat (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the main category should cover extant substantive titles. The subcategory 'Extinct earldoms in the Peerage of England' includes titles like 'Earl of Leicester' which had a long and distinguished history as a title in the peerage of England (it became extinct and is now extant as a title in the peerage of the UK). I suggest that Earl of Burford, Earl of Doncaster and Earl of Euston belong in a subcategory.Alekksandr (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Burford, Doncaster and Euston are also extant substantive titles. Opera hat (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Substantive title and Subsidiary title. To quote from the latter page, 'A subsidiary title is an hereditary title held by a royal or a noble but which is not regularly used to identify that person, due to his concurrent holding of a greater title.' I suggest that these two categories are 'as opposed to' each other. Can I ask if you have any other suggestions as to how to describe a title which is not a subsidiary title? Alekksandr (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that things stay as they were until a few days ago, i.e. that earldoms in the Peerage of England (included those currently borne by marquesses and dukes) are categorised under Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of England, and that those earldoms in the Peerage of England which have become extinct are sub-categorised under Category:Extinct earldoms in the Peerage of England. I don't see the need for any further sub-categorization, which is why I have proposed this category for deletion. Opera hat (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I would point out that, until a few days ago, a number of earldoms held by dukes and marquesses were not categorised at all (or at least not as earldoms) - Burford, Devonshire, Doncaster, Euston, Rutland. Alekksandr (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on peerages which have had no or very little independent existence are usually redirects to the higher peerage title, and therefore show in the category in italics. I still don't see the need for further distinction under an artificial term like "subsidiary earldom". Opera hat (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it is not true that "A courtesy title is not a peerage, so cannot be "in the Peerage of England" (or anywhere else)." They are indeed peerages, just ones that are not used these days by their actual holders (but by their sons), as the handful of articles clearly show. The Category:Courtesy earls (I'm fine with that) do not "really" hold these titles. So there is no need for this very incomplete category. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See List of earldoms which shows in bold both 'substantive' titles like Earl of Shrewsbury and subsidiary titles like Earl of Arundel (used by the heir) and Earl of Worcester (not used by the heir, as it is identical to the marquessate). I suggest that (1) these titles should be categorized somewhere in Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of England, in the same way that 'Category:Extinct earldoms in the Peerage of England' have been since 2012. (2) If they are given a subcategory such as 'Subsidiary Earldoms in the Peerage of England', then the main category can be left containing only substantive earldoms. (3) If the category is 'very incomplete', then I suggest that the remedy is to complete it.
They are still substantive earldoms. The peerage does not cease to exist just because it is inherited by someone with a higher title. Opera hat (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree. That is why I suggested renaming the category 'Subsidiary Earldoms in the Peerage of England'. Alekksandr (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of these are merely redirects to the senior title; where there is a substantive article it is likely mainly to be about the title in an earlier period when it was the senior title, which applies both to Arundel and Worcester. I could accept a category for the individual holders of courtesy earldoms, though it should be limited to those currently holding such titles or who died without inheriting the senior title. However earldoms that are used as courtesy titles will not make a stable category, because it depends on a duke or marquis having a son: if they have no children or only daughters. I would not object to a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep this as a separate category, as subsidiary seems to be a trivial characteristic. However, I suppose that the category should be upmerged instead of deleted, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2016 (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: keep. – FayenaticLondon 12:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A census town in India is something between a town and a village. It is questionable if we need such specific categories (WP:NARROWCAT). See also this earlier discussion. Please note that I'll stay neutral in this nomination, just want to avoid that User:Vin09 goes on expanding this tree while it might be in vain in case there is not enough consensus to keep the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison We do have a Category:Census-designated places in the United States but that's really a category tree of last resort for unincorporated rural areas with no other legal form of recognition. If the target categories are workable, I would favor getting rid of this tree but I'll defer to editors more familiar with India. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per Census of India 2011, it is not a town, so how can we merge it with cities and towns by xxx district. It is just in the phase of conversion from a village (rural) to town (urban). Please note that certain towns of 2001 have been denotified and were again made as rural villages in 2011 census. So, they lost their census town status. It is a census coined name.--Vin09(talk) 08:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lots of census-designated places in the US are clearly not rural, they just lack formal governance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it includes a lot of unincorporated suburbs. But there again, it's used when they are not a village, city, township, etc.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (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, rename and merge per nomination. – FayenaticLondon 12:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge/delete as the Slovene ethnic territory nearly coincides with modern Slovenia, see map in Slovene Lands. I think there is no other modern country where we have these artificial category names for earlier centuries so it's a kind of C2C nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think this is a follow up to a previous nom, though we normally encourage categorisation by contemporary polities. I do not think Slovenia has political unity until the formation of Yugoslavia after WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice right, this nomination is upon the implied suggestion of the closer of this discussion but the suggestion had actually nothing to do with the previous nomination as such. And Slovenia did not become a polity until WWI indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most. To imply there is in any sense Slovenia at these times is historical anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I agree: Delete -- However, we need to ensure that nothing ends off orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the anachronism but I really think that a straight delete is not a good idea. Some categories will get orphaned to begin with, because e.g. Category:16th-century Slovenian people will no longer have an appropriate parent. Also I wonder to which other (Slovenian) category we'd need to move articles like Croatian–Slovene Peasant Revolt and Slovene Peasant Revolt when the above categories are getting deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge and delete per nom. Those in favour of deletion are again allowing political history to completely trump and thereby obliterate the categorization of ethnic and sociological history. "Slovenia" had no political unity during the relevant times, but that does not mean that Slovenia did not exist and that there was no Slovene people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:11, 7 April 2016 (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.
Category:Songs associated with the American Revolution[edit]
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.
Sounds good but could it need purging? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the usual "about" categories; how much about the subject must a song be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. We do not need this category for two songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand I am shocked Yankee Doodle is not hear, although it would not fit in the target name just the current one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2016 (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.
Nominator's rationale: All the articles besides the main one are albums and the parent categories all fall in the album category scheme. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:04, 7 February 2016 (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:administrative close. This is the same nomination as just below the next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mistyped CeeGee 06:55, 7 February 2016 (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.
Category:Media in Soto la Marina, Tamaulipas[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: It's a category with one subcategory consisting of two redirects and no possibility for expansion. The whole thing needs to go. Raymie (t • c) 04:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As creator of the category, I agree - delete. Note that when I made it, both of those redirects were articles in their own right. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really surprise me. It took a while for people to realize that most Mexican TV stations are little more than a callsign slapped on a retransmitter of a national network and should be redirects. Raymie (t • c) 17:51, 7 February 2016 (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:speedy delete per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mistyped CeeGee 06:55, 7 February 2016 (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:no consensus. In the meantime, I moved Jewish rock music back to Jewish rock given that there were objections. Anyone who wants to rename the article should therefore use WP:RM.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note per objection: Christian rock is an established genre; so is Jewish rock. Nominator unilaterally moved Jewish rock to Jewish rock music today (presumably on the assumption that boulders might have specific religions).Oppose, and move the article back. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - currently around two thirds of the subcategories, sub-subcategories, and sub-sub-categories of Category:Rock music groups by genre use "Foo rock groups", while only one thind use "Foo rock music(al) groups" - hardly an overwhelming endorsement of "conformity". And, as Invisiboy has pointed out, the nearest comparison is Category:Christian rock groups, which makes no distinction between the genre and the religion of its members. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and move back the Jewish Rock article. In this case shorter titles are better, the addition of music has no need to disambiguate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Invisiboy42293, Grutness, and Johnpacklambert: Regarding the article name, would one of you be willing to start a WP:RM? After that issue is solved, this category discussion can speedily be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2016 (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.
These 14 categories contain just 1 article: Miklós Horthy. None of the these awards have a main article to establish notability and they are only mentioned in a long list of awards. Based on Mr. Horthy's position, I suspect he gave some of these medals to himself. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Many articles for heads of state in Wikipedia include a list of awards. Just as a random example, look at Haakon VII of Norway. It can equally be indicated that the articles does not establish any notability. And he could also have awarded some of these medals to himself as he was king of Norway. The issue is not if these categories should be kept or not. There has to be a rule which establishes when awards are to be mentioned and when not. I could also consider that a medal for military service during a war might be more important than Honorary citizen of Largs, Scotland or Honorary Colonel Norfolk Yeomanry – 11 June 1902 which are mentioned for King Haakon. I could find similar cases for many other heads of state articles. Afil (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without exception, the Haakon VII award categories have other recipients and a main article describing the award. (There is definitely over-categorization of other heads of state though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, whether or not Mr Horthy gave the medals to himself may not be as relevant, but as nominator indicates, no less than three guidelines are applicable to delete this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category with only 1 entry and little prospect of significantly more being added is surely pointless. Nigej (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Utterly pointless. These things are must better listified in the bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the three "Recipients of Fooian military awards and decorations" categories and the two "Military awards and decorations of Foo" categories. These surely are capable of expansion, and probably easily populated, and are part of larger, well-established trees. I don't for one minute think that Austria, for instance, has only ever given out one military medal. In fact, I found four more very quickly and easily. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that one or two of the categories for individual medals don't match the key articles (e.g., the "Austrian War Memorial Medal" is actually the War Commemorative Medal (Austria)) Grutness...wha? 10:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that catch. Obviously, rename if kept to match the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the three "Recipients of Fooian military awards and decorations" categories and the two "Military awards and decorations of Foo" categories as per Grutness above. Of course we should not delete these categories which are clearly capable of expansion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all we have let award categories go way beyond what our guidelines allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Where's your evidence for this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2016 (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 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 8 February 2016 (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.
