Talk:Duke of Huéscar

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• Dukes of Huéscar → Duke of Huéscar
• Dukes of Caminha → Duke of Caminha
• Dukes of Arcos → Duke of Arcos
• Dukes of Genoa → Duke of Genoa

– Those articles were moved without any discussion by user:Kauffner sometime ago. Those articles are about the titles, not about its holders, so WP:PLURAL doesn't apply there. Moagim (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Moagim notified me of this RM, but I don't have any view other than (1) Moagim is correct that these moves were evidently controversial, and the summary "Rvt per WP:BRD)" isn't accurate/appropriate summary for pushing through a move twice, or the shortcut would be "WP:BRB" (sic). (2) I see admin User:Nyttend reverted Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Narbonne, Duke of Noailles, and Duke of Narbonne with the summary "(It's about the title and the title's history, not the individual dukes; if it were, we'd entitle it List of Dukes of Narbonne)" which seems reasonable ...given article content, at first sight I would incline to support Nyttend's reasoning. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. These articles are lists of dukes, and typically we put lists in the plural, e.g. Governors of Roman Britain, Lists of people, List of districts of India, Provinces of Sweden, etc. This article has running text, but the text is just the sequence of dukes in narrative form -- the same information that's in the list. WP:PLURAL states we should use the plural for, "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" and that "articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title." The French and Spanish dukedoms were all done this way until just a few days ago. I notice that although the nom notified various editors, I somehow slipped his mind. Kauffner (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Kauffner, I see where you're coming from, but even when these articles are just lists of people, the intent is an article about the title or position, including its history, privileges, etc. A list of holders is an appropriate element of that, but not the main purpose. The plural titles at least fail the standard of consistency at WP:CRITERIA. Check categories like Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The plural form works for category names, which indeed are just lists, but again, articles should be more. I understand the argument for a plural title, but when in doubt, we should use singular titles. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• French, Spanish, and British dukedoms are almost entirely honorary. It's not like president or prime minister where there are powers, duties, and perks to describe. Kauffner (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is something that should be addressed. The "articles" in question here are really only narratives of the list. Is there actually any potential for a real article for any of these? Cf. Doge of Genoa and contrast with Dukes of Genoa. —  AjaxSmack  19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, the article is about the title, so should be singular. This is the normal practice for such articles. And while the title may now be merely honorary, this wasn't always the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. changing from neutral to support following BDD's pointer to WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support all. The articles are about the titles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.