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. Whether the category is appropriately applied to individual articles is not something that needs to be resolved here and that discussion can continue elsewhere. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This category is being misused. Two of the articles do not say that the person was granted a peerage. The third is about a living person, who holds an ancient Scottish peerage. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nathaniel Hooke (Jacobite) says that 'The next year he became a Brigadier-General of the French Army (3 March 1708) and was created an Irish Baron ...[1]'. Anne Oglethorpe says that 'She was made Countess of Oglethorpe by James III.[2]' Duke of Mar says that 'The Jacobite title of Duke of Mar was conferred on John Erskine, ... with the same remainder as his Earldom, i.e. to heirs-general ... The other titles, such as they are, remain extant, although they are not recognised by the British or any other government and have not been claimed or used by their holders since the eighteenth century.' It is on this basis that the present Countess of Mar is categorised as a Jacobite peeress.
Merge but purge -- I accept that Hooke and Mrs Oglethorpe correctly appear. However the third person Countess of Mar (who is alive) ought not to be in this category at all. We do not categorise dukes also as barons, because they hold a subsidiary title of baron. This category should be limited to Jacobite creations and the holders of such titles who actually used them, probably ending in about the 1780s, when various Jacobite peers returned from exile and were able to repurchase their estate from the insolvent York Buildings Company and would have stopped using titles granted at by the exiled dynasty. The Young Pretender died in 1788. As a matter of practice, the peerage article on a title held by one person only is a redirect to that person's bio-article. It is thus appropriate for Hooke and Oglethorpe to appear in the peerage article. The fact that they had Jacobite peerages should however appear in the lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure of the relevance of the fact that 'We do not categorise dukes also as barons, because they hold a subsidiary title of baron'. The Countess of Mar is categorised as the holder of a Jacobite dukedom because a dukedom outranks an earldom. I suggest that 'probably ending in about the 1780s' is arbitrary, and that we should follow the authoritative work, Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage. That work records John Francis Goodeve Erskine (1836–1930) as 29th Earl of Mar and 7th Duke of Mar.Alekksandr (talk) 19:57, 26 September 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.
Support but this really ought to be a container category for Dukedoms, Earldoms, etc. Alternatively, they ought to be merged here, since the totalnumber of Jacobite creations was quite small. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Jacobite Peerage, I make it 17 dukedoms, 13 marquessates, 39 earldoms, 32 viscountcies and about 60 baronies and lordships of Parliament (assuming that the list on that page is complete). I suggest that each of those figures is enough for 'a container category for Dukedoms, Earldoms, etc.' Alekksandr (talk) 20:09, 26 September 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:Honorary Doctors of the University of Alcalá[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. If anybody wants to do the conversion, than they can find the articles in the category there. (NAC) ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An honorary doctorate is generally awarded because a person is notable. This makes it a NN WP:OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert per nom and delete category. Other language Wikipedias are free to go off on the directions they choose by consensus, but the consensus in the English WP has been to delete these categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OCAWARD. Getting an honorary doctorate for already being well known or cutting the price of your commencement speech is not defining. I don't think it's even worth listifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD and very doubtful about listifying. We have very few lists on honorary doctors and I guess that the few lists that exist have not been afd'ed by mere coincidence. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 15 October 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:@Redheylin: Or else one might think the cat is about literary genres like nonfiction, romantic stories, etc. CN1 (talk)
14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
New rationale: The way I see it, these two categories serve the same goal, as indicated by some subcategories which they both share. I deem "Theatrical music genre" to be more precise because the music accompanies and accentuates an action, be it that this action is taking place on stage, on TV, in film or in video games. CN1 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Music genres. Don't see the point of the category. Just groups together a few random music categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal altered@Necrothesp: Altered slightly according to your criticism. CN1 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the new proposal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 21 September 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: There seems to be no good reason for two categories. Some schools in Nepal are called high schools and some are called by other names. It doesn't seem to make much difference and "secondary schools" is the more generic term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 21 September 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: Created without the actual stub template and just added as category to the foot of each article. Also it's not needed as there are only 80 or so Bulgarian film stubs in total, so a decade breakdown isn't needed. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:12, 21 September 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.
