Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:33, 10 March 2019

Revision as of 23:21, 10 March 2019

Line 162:

3. The biggest of the 25 seems to be 'Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom' with 11 subcats and 1335 entries. I suggest that this category is a candidate for diffusion, and that it illustrates 'the merits of categories like Category:Earls of Leicester', to quote a phrase used in the 2016 discussion.

4. There are many cases of successive creations of an earldom with the same name - e.g. [[Earl of Yarmouth]] is a title that has been created three times in British history, once in the Peerage of England and twice in the Peerage of Great Britain. IOW not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of E and not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of GB - so I suggest that it is incorrect to makethat [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth]] is a subcat of either 'Earls in the Peerage of E' orand 'Earls in the Peerage of GB'. E.g.Contrast [[:Category:Earls of Leicester]] which (I suggest correctly) is not a subcat of any of the 'Earls in the Peerage of X' categories, because it has been created in each of the Peerages of E, GB and the UK. If [[:Category:Earls of X (date)]] were simply merged to [[:Category:Earls of X]], then we would lose the categorisation of the members of the merged category into the various Peerages. I suggest that having [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679)]] (which is a subcat of both [[:Category|Earls in the Peerage of England]] and [[:Earls of Yarmouth]]) allows the reader to see at a glance (a) which individuals held peerages under which creation and (b) which were in e.g. the Peerage of England or the Peerage of GB.

5. As things stand, there are categories for peerages with two holders, but not for those with one holder. If this proposal is adopted, there will be categories for peerages with three holders but not for those with two holders. I feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere,. andThe thatlogic thisof proposalthe status quo is nothat more[the andarticle nofor lessthe arbitraryone thanholder] can be categorised in whatever way [the statuscategory quowith one article] would be categorised if it existed.

[[User:Alekksandr|Alekksandr]] ([[User talk:Alekksandr|talk]]) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)