Talk:County of Nassau

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Holy Roman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

What's the reason for the move from Nassau (state) to Nassau (duchy)? Nassau was first a county, then a principality, and finally a duchy -- we probably don't want to have a separate article on each of those periods, so Nassau (state) seems to me to work best. --Chl 15:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply Nassau? --Gerard von Hebel 09:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because to English-speakers, Nassau, Bahama, is a highly notable placename, the Nassau they know best. Henq 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Nassau (state), which seems most neutral and logical. Plus, there are precedents. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Territory of Nassau → Nassau (state) … Rationale: The page was recently moved from Duchy of Nassau to its current location citing the fact that it had not always been a duchy. The page had earlier been moved from Nassau (state) to Nassau (duchy) and then to Duchy of Nassau, and while calling it a duchy may only be partially correct these moves followed established naming conventions. The present naming Territory of Nassau does not follow established naming conventions and I propose a return to Nassau (state), which is the prevailing naming convention used for states in the Holy Roman Empire.

Approval[edit]

Please indicate support for all acceptable choices. Feel free to add other possibilities.

Territory of Nassau = no change

Nassau (state)

Support, as per nomination. Domino theory 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has the disadvantage that Nassau was sometimes several states, but acceptable Septentrionalis 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not appreciate parentheticals in article names. Waimea 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Parentheses aren't pretty, but the other possibilities are incorrect or require splitting the article up. Chl 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Nassau

Generic name, and the most accurate much of the time. Septentrionalis 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Principality of Nassau". I would not want to encourage to dividing this article, as it will lead to a circus of insects... Waimea 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely correct (doesn't cover

Duchy of Nassau

Since the move to Territory of Nassau does not follow naming conventions the other alternative would be a return to the previous location: Duchy of Nassau. -- Domino theory 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Copied from below[reply]
Possibly preferable, although it will eventually need to be divided off, with a separate article for the 19th-century Duchy, like Kingdom of Saxony. Septentrionalis 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This needs to be kept together. Waimea 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Since the move to Territory of Nassau does not follow naming conventions the other alternative would be a return to the previous location: Duchy of Nassau. -- Domino theory 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly preferable, although it will eventually need to be divided off, with a separate article for the 19th-century Duchy, like Kingdom of Saxony. I am altering to an approval vote, since there are several choices here. Septentrionalis 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there already was an existing article at House of Nassau. To make the issue here more transparent I moved the segment under "House of Nassau" including interwiki links and categories to the House of Nassau article. There also seems to be some issue with double redirects after the last move, where Duchy of Nassau has been redirected to Duke of Nassau, another redirect. I'm not sure how this may be related to several other articles on dynasties and related biographies that recently has been moved by a small group of users. It looks quite messy with lots of double redirects no longer working. -- Domino theory 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not at all ashamed of making forks, doubling information... putting the same text and the same content to several articles? Now I looked at House of Nassau, and your edits, and I conclude that there is a need to merge these articles together to one article, and make the others redirects. So, House of Nassau should be merged into this state of Nassau article. Or they alternatively should have a clearly separate roles both - and putting the same map and the same ruler lists and much of the same text does mean that their roles are not separate but too identical. Please remember that this encyclopedia acts with hyperlinks! a piece of information does not need to be in two articles, as one article should be linked to refer reader to go to the other article to gather further info. If you make them almost identical, our average reader gets frustrated, does not possibly want to read encyclopedia which offers repetition after repetition, or alternatively lauhgs out loud rolling on the floor, dubbing this place as excessively unprofessional... Having said that, I start to think that one additional article would probably be useful: a list article containing these pesky long lists of Nassau petty princelings. And nothing else at all. Just a list, and very terse intro there. When that is done, I bet that all the other text suddenly sems a really little bunch and natural to be in one and only one (non-list) article, others becoming just redirects. Waimea 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

County vs. Countship[edit]

I believe countship is a better translation of the German Grafschaft than the commonly used county. In common usage, particularly in the United States, a county is a unit of local government subordinate to a state. As explained under County, regarding the translation of the French comté,

whereas the word comté denoted a sovereign jurisdiction in the original French,
 the English county denotes a subdivision of a sovereign jurisdiction.

The same can be said for the German Grafschaft.

Countship carries the original idea of a sovereign territory ruled by a count, without any other modern connotations in the context of territories. See Wiktionary entry I believe the word can also refer to an heriditary title itself, but this should not create any ambiguity in this context.

Any other opinions? --Texas Whitt (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of the Rhine[edit]

page 3 of Napoleons German Allies (2) by Otto von Pivka et al, describes the territories that were lost and gained during this period. These details could be added to the article. --PBS (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]