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: Not useful for navigation; each of these holds only an architecture sub-category, which is otherwise adequately parented already. –
FayenaticLondon 20:32, 22 September 2022 (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:Queen's Counsel
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:rename per article title. Although the article was moved without RM it seems very unlikely that the move will be reverted. This proposal was opposed for
speedy renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SSSB: The problem is it'll be inaccurate for people who have been appointed QCs who are now deceased. For those who are currently alive, they're now KCs but for those who are deceased, the category will be wrong. That said, we've got people who were appointed as KCs who died before 1952 who are in the QC category, so ideally the category should probably be "King's (or Queen's) Counsel", or... I don't know. Maybe worth going to
WP:CFD for an actual discussion... (Also, please ping back, I'm not watching this page.) —
Tom Morris (
talk) 12:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tom Morris: I'd argue this distinction doesn't matter, as King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel are synonymous. Alternatively, we can categorise individuals by the title they last held?(I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.)
SSSB (
talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I guess this is more suitable for full CfD.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose@
SSSB: The main article was boldly moved without an RM
just yesterday (and was tagged as a minor change at that) so it's hard to see this falling under
WP:C2D. I wouldn't hold up a non-controversial rename given the historical moment except the vast majority of biography articles in this tree were appointed by a queen which is worth discussing. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The KCs of the 17th and 18th centuries are currently in
Category:Queen's Counsel 1597–1800. I think it makes sense to rename the whole hierarchy to King's Counsel, with redirects from Queen's, but for future reference it might be best to have a full discussion on record. The dated categories should probably also be split/renamed "17th-century King's Counsel" etc, which may not a Speedy matter. –
FayenaticLondon 10:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose the speedy change. I already lodged a nomination to change from Queen's to King's but then withdrew. The reason is that there are many, many QC's who died before the Queen and so retain their title. I don't think we should change their category. Rather, a new King's Counsel category should be created. It is an enormous job but hey, we are addressing the last seventy years of Counsel, and given the likelihood of Charles > William > George ascension, the new King's Counsel is likely to be needed for generations to come. May as well start now, while maintaining the QC's.
I am strongly open to any alternative though. Because I am aware that having two Counsel categories may be redundant and clunky given that really, its the same category but under a different name.
MaxnaCarta (
talk) 12:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This needs to be moved to a full discussion.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a
King's and Queen's Counsel main article? The point is that being a King's Counsel is the same as being a Queen's Counsel, it just depends on who is the monarch at the time being referenced. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Metropolitan90: The venue for deciding that would be an
WP:RM at
Talk:King's Counsel, rather than
WP:CFD. Win or lose, that would probably be helpful in the category space to ensure the main article has a stable name based on consensus.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support move to
Category:King's Counselor preferablyCategory:King's and Queen's Counsel. As I understand it, the concern is that while anyone who was a QC a month ago is now a KC, people who only held the office during Elizabeth II's reign will be miscategorised if they are now placed in Category:KC. However, Category:QC already contains all QCs & KCs going back to 1597, so a number of people who were in life only KCs are currently categorised as QCs. So the shift creates no more of a problem than already existed. That said,
Category:King's and Queen's Counsel would actually fix the problem.
Furius (
talk) 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about "and". Because, at any given point it is either King's counsel, or Queen's counsel (depending on the monarch at the time), but never both simultaneously. (I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.)
SSSB (
talk) 20:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm open to either this or pairs with some of the subcategories. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this is like having a category called "English and French authors," which one would expect to contain both French author and English authors (and obviously wouldn't be a valid category). I suppose "Category King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel" would be even less ambiguous.
Furius (
talk) 15:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:King's Counsel (not Council!). I do not think any lawyers who were QCs would consider themselves miscategorised as KCs, given that that is the current title; certainly they know the rule mutatis mutandis. The subcats should also move likewise, but any territories that ceased using the designation while it was still QC should remain as QC. Redirect all that are renamed for periods and territories that had QCs. –
FayenaticLondon 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename Parent Cat Although it was speedily named,
King's Counsel seems stable. The subcats seem quite a bit more nuanced though and it makes sense to discuss them here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename When we had a Queen they were all called QCs, even if they never served under a queen, so now they are all called KCs. We should reflect the practice in the legal community.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- If this was split by period or other criteria, we should be retaining QC for those who were a QC at their death, having been appointed and died during the reign of QEII. However the parent in any event should now be KC. The Nigerian subcat has two people appointed as QC but presumably ceasing to be such when Nigeria became a republic.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (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: rename, Greece did not exist yet in the 1820s but the categories are nevertheless useful as Year in War categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
They are establishments in the conception stage in Greece, so I deliberately did not include them in the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmmm – in very many precedents we have kept year categories and (dis)establishment categories exactly in line with each other, as "chronology categories". If it's useful to keep the establishment categories for 1820s Greece while it was a territory within the Ottoman Empire, then I think the same should go for the year categories. Why not just create the named target categories as new sub-categories alongside the establishments? Articles such as the 1822 and 1823 constitutions would stay where they are. –
FayenaticLondon 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
In practice all articles in these categories are related to the war. We do not categorize births by country anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:16, 23 September 2022 (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:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas
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:Delete While interesting as trivia, this is a non-notable intersection.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 01:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: This category was suggested by
SlvrHwk, who suggested that, rather than those articles falling within [category:x languages], there should be a category named Category:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas, so, I am contesting this deletion.
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as a trivial intersection. The articles also do not belong in a [category:x languages].
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Why do they not belong to a [category:x languages]?
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Because the articles are about biology, not about language.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The topic of a list may be notable in itself while at the same time it is not a defining characteristic for the articles in a category. They are two different things.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I’m fully aware that they’re two different things, but it’s what
Hemiauchenia suggested. He based the category name off of that article
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: The current name doesn't make sense. "
Allkaruen", for example, comes from the Tehuelche words "all" ("brain") and "karuen" ("ancient"), it's not named after the "Allkareuen language" (which sadly doesn't exist). In general, I agree that this is worthwhile information to have but that it would be better as a list.
Furius (
talk) 15:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, exactly. If the animal were "named after Tehuelche" it would be called "Tehuelche." Alkaruen has a name "derived from Tehuelche" or perhaps it "is named in Tehuelche."
Furius (
talk) 19:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - this should be a list article, not a category.
Furius (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the one who originally proposed the category. I think a better name for the category would be "Organisms with names derived from indigenous languages of the Americas". If this is a trivial cross-categorisation, then articles like
List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) also deserve scrutiny.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this misses the point,
Hemiauchenia, which is that the criteria for a notable article and for a useful category are different.
Furius (
talk) 08:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
What is the criteria for a useful category? What makes a category notable?
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell this category has a definition.
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That's not what
WP:Defining is about. Perhaps you might find it useful to read the policy again.
Furius (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (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: Not useful for navigation; each of these holds only an architecture sub-category, which is otherwise adequately parented already. –
FayenaticLondon 20:32, 22 September 2022 (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:Queen's Counsel
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:rename per article title. Although the article was moved without RM it seems very unlikely that the move will be reverted. This proposal was opposed for
speedy renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SSSB: The problem is it'll be inaccurate for people who have been appointed QCs who are now deceased. For those who are currently alive, they're now KCs but for those who are deceased, the category will be wrong. That said, we've got people who were appointed as KCs who died before 1952 who are in the QC category, so ideally the category should probably be "King's (or Queen's) Counsel", or... I don't know. Maybe worth going to
WP:CFD for an actual discussion... (Also, please ping back, I'm not watching this page.) —
Tom Morris (
talk) 12:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tom Morris: I'd argue this distinction doesn't matter, as King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel are synonymous. Alternatively, we can categorise individuals by the title they last held?(I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.)
SSSB (
talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I guess this is more suitable for full CfD.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose@
SSSB: The main article was boldly moved without an RM
just yesterday (and was tagged as a minor change at that) so it's hard to see this falling under
WP:C2D. I wouldn't hold up a non-controversial rename given the historical moment except the vast majority of biography articles in this tree were appointed by a queen which is worth discussing. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The KCs of the 17th and 18th centuries are currently in
Category:Queen's Counsel 1597–1800. I think it makes sense to rename the whole hierarchy to King's Counsel, with redirects from Queen's, but for future reference it might be best to have a full discussion on record. The dated categories should probably also be split/renamed "17th-century King's Counsel" etc, which may not a Speedy matter. –
FayenaticLondon 10:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose the speedy change. I already lodged a nomination to change from Queen's to King's but then withdrew. The reason is that there are many, many QC's who died before the Queen and so retain their title. I don't think we should change their category. Rather, a new King's Counsel category should be created. It is an enormous job but hey, we are addressing the last seventy years of Counsel, and given the likelihood of Charles > William > George ascension, the new King's Counsel is likely to be needed for generations to come. May as well start now, while maintaining the QC's.
I am strongly open to any alternative though. Because I am aware that having two Counsel categories may be redundant and clunky given that really, its the same category but under a different name.
MaxnaCarta (
talk) 12:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This needs to be moved to a full discussion.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a
King's and Queen's Counsel main article? The point is that being a King's Counsel is the same as being a Queen's Counsel, it just depends on who is the monarch at the time being referenced. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Metropolitan90: The venue for deciding that would be an
WP:RM at
Talk:King's Counsel, rather than
WP:CFD. Win or lose, that would probably be helpful in the category space to ensure the main article has a stable name based on consensus.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support move to
Category:King's Counselor preferablyCategory:King's and Queen's Counsel. As I understand it, the concern is that while anyone who was a QC a month ago is now a KC, people who only held the office during Elizabeth II's reign will be miscategorised if they are now placed in Category:KC. However, Category:QC already contains all QCs & KCs going back to 1597, so a number of people who were in life only KCs are currently categorised as QCs. So the shift creates no more of a problem than already existed. That said,
Category:King's and Queen's Counsel would actually fix the problem.
Furius (
talk) 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about "and". Because, at any given point it is either King's counsel, or Queen's counsel (depending on the monarch at the time), but never both simultaneously. (I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.)
SSSB (
talk) 20:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm open to either this or pairs with some of the subcategories. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this is like having a category called "English and French authors," which one would expect to contain both French author and English authors (and obviously wouldn't be a valid category). I suppose "Category King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel" would be even less ambiguous.
Furius (
talk) 15:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:King's Counsel (not Council!). I do not think any lawyers who were QCs would consider themselves miscategorised as KCs, given that that is the current title; certainly they know the rule mutatis mutandis. The subcats should also move likewise, but any territories that ceased using the designation while it was still QC should remain as QC. Redirect all that are renamed for periods and territories that had QCs. –
FayenaticLondon 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename Parent Cat Although it was speedily named,
King's Counsel seems stable. The subcats seem quite a bit more nuanced though and it makes sense to discuss them here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename When we had a Queen they were all called QCs, even if they never served under a queen, so now they are all called KCs. We should reflect the practice in the legal community.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- If this was split by period or other criteria, we should be retaining QC for those who were a QC at their death, having been appointed and died during the reign of QEII. However the parent in any event should now be KC. The Nigerian subcat has two people appointed as QC but presumably ceasing to be such when Nigeria became a republic.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (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: rename, Greece did not exist yet in the 1820s but the categories are nevertheless useful as Year in War categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
They are establishments in the conception stage in Greece, so I deliberately did not include them in the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmmm – in very many precedents we have kept year categories and (dis)establishment categories exactly in line with each other, as "chronology categories". If it's useful to keep the establishment categories for 1820s Greece while it was a territory within the Ottoman Empire, then I think the same should go for the year categories. Why not just create the named target categories as new sub-categories alongside the establishments? Articles such as the 1822 and 1823 constitutions would stay where they are. –
FayenaticLondon 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
In practice all articles in these categories are related to the war. We do not categorize births by country anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:16, 23 September 2022 (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:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas
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:Delete While interesting as trivia, this is a non-notable intersection.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 01:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: This category was suggested by
SlvrHwk, who suggested that, rather than those articles falling within [category:x languages], there should be a category named Category:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas, so, I am contesting this deletion.
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as a trivial intersection. The articles also do not belong in a [category:x languages].
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Why do they not belong to a [category:x languages]?
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Because the articles are about biology, not about language.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The topic of a list may be notable in itself while at the same time it is not a defining characteristic for the articles in a category. They are two different things.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I’m fully aware that they’re two different things, but it’s what
Hemiauchenia suggested. He based the category name off of that article
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: The current name doesn't make sense. "
Allkaruen", for example, comes from the Tehuelche words "all" ("brain") and "karuen" ("ancient"), it's not named after the "Allkareuen language" (which sadly doesn't exist). In general, I agree that this is worthwhile information to have but that it would be better as a list.
Furius (
talk) 15:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, exactly. If the animal were "named after Tehuelche" it would be called "Tehuelche." Alkaruen has a name "derived from Tehuelche" or perhaps it "is named in Tehuelche."
Furius (
talk) 19:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - this should be a list article, not a category.
Furius (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the one who originally proposed the category. I think a better name for the category would be "Organisms with names derived from indigenous languages of the Americas". If this is a trivial cross-categorisation, then articles like
List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) also deserve scrutiny.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this misses the point,
Hemiauchenia, which is that the criteria for a notable article and for a useful category are different.
Furius (
talk) 08:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
What is the criteria for a useful category? What makes a category notable?
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell this category has a definition.
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That's not what
WP:Defining is about. Perhaps you might find it useful to read the policy again.
Furius (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (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.