Talk:Hugh Luttrell (MP, died 1428)

References

I saw this needed references so I found one and added it, I believe there are more so I tagged it for ref improve. Jihadcola (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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: not moved. However, there is consensus that the article currently at "Hugh Luttrell" should be moved to Hugh Luttrell (Liberal politician) and "Hugh Luttrell" should be turned into a dab page. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Sir Hugh Luttrell → Hugh Luttrell – I am not very sure if honorific 'Sir" is needed here ref: MOS:HONORIFIC! Trying to find the answer through this requested move.Tito Dutta ✉ 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ideally we wouldn't have "Sir" in the article name, per naming conventions, but you can't move this article to Hugh Luttrell because there's already another article there. Perhaps there is another disambiguator such as Hugh Luttrell (nobleman)? Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic and rename the other article Hugh Luttrell (Liberal politician). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that either is the primary topic, as neither has a lot of hits, and Sir Hugh has precisely no internal links. A dab page at Hugh Luttrell looks like the best solution. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 20:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as primary topic. Per Interplanet Janet's explanation, Hugh Luttrell should be a dab page, with its existing content moved to Hugh Luttrell (Liberal politician) or other agreed title. -- Trevj (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• oppose -- We do not like "Sir" as part of article titles (except baronets), but it is sometimes useful to dismabiguate, as here. the target is already an article and correctly has a "for" hotnote to link to the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (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.