Talk:List of dukes in the peerage of Spain

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dukedom vs duchy[edit]

"British dukes normally have dukedoms, Continental dukes have duchies". So says WP:NCROY#Other_cases, the relevant guideline here. In Spanish, this distinction doesn't exist. They are both ducado. This distinction is derived from British usage, according to which Lancaster and Cornwall are duchies, while the other 30-some-odd ducal offices are dukedoms. Lancaster and Cornwall can hardly be considered sovereign, so that certainly isn't a requirement for a duchy. "Duchy" implies the duke has or traditionally had feudal rights in the relevant territory. The dukedom idea is peculiar to Britain and involves simply naming a title after a town; The recipient does not normally have any rights or estates in that locality. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCROY is not a source, as Wikipedia itself is not a source. If it were, I could cite the article about duchy, which says it's "a territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess". Spanish dukes do not rule any territory, fief or domain; thus, there could be no Spanish duchy. The dukedom idea "involves simply naming a title after a town; the recipient does not normally have any rights or estates in that locality." The same is true for its Spanish counterpart. Is there a source claiming that the term dukedom can only be applied to British dukedoms? Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to remove the redlinks[edit]

Firstly, thanks to those who have produced & maintained this list, esp. those committed editors who use registered accounts and supply edit summaries (unlike some of the lazier IP counterparts).

However, this strikes me as an odd list, containing - as it now does - so many redlinks.

Consensus IMHO is to permit only notable entries - i.e. those who already have their own article. Please refer to the guideline Write the article first (WTAF).

If this is so, most of the currently listed dukedoms should be removed, unless & until such time as an editor creates - if they are able - an article for the dukedom in question.

Otherwise, at it stands now, I could add Duke of Trafford09 to the article, and add any of my friends too, while I'm at it.

Compare this list & its history with the List of fashion designers & its properly-controlled history.

It's easy to spot the difference, and the afore-mentioned List of fashion designers seems much more trustworthy, verifiable, neater & a better article for it.

Hence I would suggest we remove all the redlinks in the current Dukedoms of Spain article, in line with WTAF.

What do other editors think? Trafford09 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and feel that we should keep the dukedom-name redlinks in this article. As stated in WP:REDDEAL: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. [...] An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things: A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. Do not remove these red links. [...]" -- Blairall (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]