Talk:Queens County

Discussion archive
I have re-added a previously deleted entry of Queens County, with the definition - (historical) The former name for County Laois in Ireland, used from the mid 16th century till 1922.

It was deleted several years ago and put in an obscure appendix. I don't see the original RFD, but don't think it is justified and seems to go against our normal policy now. We have dozens of historical names, (including some that now have both a modern meaning and a historical one). Examples include Constantinople, Abyssinia, Bechuanaland, Rhodesia, Gold Coast, Papua, New Guinea, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Siam.

Can't see any reason that this should not be reinstated.--Dmol (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. I would keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I remain opposed to the policy of including broad classes of names of individual entities, but this entry would seem to be in accord with the voted policy. Keep DCDuring TALK 12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to County Laois, the former name of that county is spelled Queen's County with an apostrophe. The spelling without the apostrophe applies only to the counties in New Brunswick, New York, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. And while we're at it, we may as well create King's County for County Offaly. —Angr 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The challenged sense would remain at least a well-attested alternative spelling. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At any rate I say keep. —Angr 09:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete – Isn’t this an SOP form, even if it forms an official name? Compare sense no. 2 of Queens (“Queens county, NY”). The entry Queens should hold etymological information, a link to the alternative form Queen's/Queen’s, and a few citations of specific place and other names including the Borough of Queens, Queens Borough, Queens County, Queens county, Queen’s Landing.

We are not a gazetteer nor a who’s who. We should be defining lexical senses of proper names, like “place name after a queen.” With few exceptions, specific places and people shouldn’t be considered the referent of a defined sense. —Michael Z. 2013-06-17 17:45 z 
 * Keep @Mzajac: For people, I agree (exceptions are words such as Confucius). But the reason is that people cannot be considered as the meaning of the word (e.g. of the surname), your surname would exist even without you. Placenames are very different. Their name exists because the place exists. The place is the sense of the word. Something such as Place named after a queen is etymological, but cannot be a definition. The definition must explain the meaning. And the meaning is the place. Of course, data such as population figures, etc. should not be included (we are not a gazetteer). Lmaltier (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Outcome: RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is a 2007 RFD on the entry: Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2007/06. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)