Category:Recipients of the Southern Cross of Honor
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
Southern Cross of Honor began to be issued in 1900 and was awarded upon request to almost any soldier who served on the Confederate side during the
Civil War (1861-65) which seems non-defining. These were privately issued by the
United Daughters of the Confederacy, not by either the US or Confederate governments. I'm having trouble finding a total number of medals issued but 6,300 were given out in 1907 alone
(source) and they were still being issued as of 2011
(source). I've already listified the contents of this category
as a section of the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete trivial and unofficial award by non-governmental entity apparently less selective than McDonald's employee of the month.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 16:22, 23 September 2015 (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 Chaplains to the King
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. –
FayenaticLondon 19:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The subcats of
Category:Positions within the British Royal Household are inconsistently named. I think these two should simply be merged: Honorary Chaplain to the King and Honorary Chaplain to the Queen are identical positions, whose title simply depends on the gender of the current monarch. I recommend merging them together into the Queen category: this matches the
Honorary Chaplain to the Queen article and the usual way we name such topics (e.g.,
God Save the Queen).
BDD (
talk) 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Some of these people weren't chaplains to a British monarch, though that term is used in the parent category. --
BDD (
talk) 20:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge as originally proposed to match
Honorary Chaplain to the Queen. We don't need to complicate things by making a new category that has a name different than that of the article.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No, seriously—I don't think we need to deviate from the article name here and create a neologistic name for the position. The British monarch changes from Queen to King or from King to Queen so rarely in history (only a handful of times (7?) in about 1000 years) that I don't think it will be that great of burden to Wikipedia to rename the category when the eventual change is made from Queen to King.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree from a technical perspective, but I think it's fair though slightly pedantic to point out that when such a change happens, those who served the previous sex might be under a misnomer. —
烏Γ(
kaw), 01:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That would be resolved by having separate categories, which is the current situation. But combining them under current terminology is what other categories have done, as with
Category:Masters of the Queen's Music. But we also don't solve the retroactive misnomer problem by inventing a new title.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I do support the rename; I was only mentioning that it makes sense for the structure to have evolved as it has. —
烏Γ(
kaw), 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep or else merge as originally proposed. There is a case for keeping insofar some of these chaplains actually had the title Honorary Chaplains to the King. Alternatively merge as originally proposed, since Honorary Chaplains to the Queen is the current title in real life, we don't need to invent new titles in Wikipedia just for the sake of easier categorization.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment (Voted above) -- I raised the question (though not strictly asked) whether an honorary chaplain to George VI automatically became one to Elizabeth II or whether there was a new set of appointments for each reign. If the latter we probably need a separate category for each reign.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The article mentions "Honorary Chaplain to the Sovereign" as an alternative title, so
Category:Honorary Chaplains to the Sovereign could potentially be the name of a combined category. I still think matching the article title is the best way to go, however. That's C2D territory. --
BDD (
talk) 19:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per Nomination For Now This category should blindly match the article naming of
Honorary Chaplain to the Queen. If the article is renamed to be more gender neutral, the category can be speedy renamed per
WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:58, 26 September 2015 (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.