Talk:Earl of Glengall
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DrKiernan in topic Requested move
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Baron of Cahir → Baron Cahir — Per the norm identified in Baron#1.2 Style of address, the correct style for a Baron is "Normally one refers to or addresses Baron [X] as Lord [X]" and again, "Non-Scottish barons are styled The Right Honourable The Lord [Barony].". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename, per convention of Category:Baronies. The nominator had implemented this as a cut-and-paste-move ([1], [2]), which I reverted. Moving it properly will retain the edit history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused here. If user BrownHairedGirl knows that "Baron Cahir" is the correct title and further knows that "move" is the proper process, then why did user BrownHairedGirl revert the article to an improper title of "Baron of Cahir"? It would be helpful if the user BrownHairedGirl could explain the motivation for such behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not strange at all: the correct process was "move", but you did not do that. Cutting-and-pasting break the revision history which is legally necessary for copyright purposes, and I was undoing a cut-and-paste. If you had actually moved the page rather than cutting-and-pasting, I would not have reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- So a proper "move" process is to be preferred to an improper cutting-and-pasting even if that results in an incorrect name for the article? I thought the goal here was to communicate knowledge. The processes are invisible to the user. Since when does a superior process trump the truth? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to change policy on cut-and-paste moves, this is not the place to argue that case. Go to Wikipedia:MOVE#Before_moving_a_page, read the policy, and then state your case on the talk page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- But that's the very reason for my confusion. For it's clear that you know how to "move" articles, you know the naming conventions for barons and you know that you should do your research Before_moving_a_page. But despite all that, you chose to not put that knoweldge into effect. You chose to go the reversion route. One is left with the suspicion that truth and accuracy were not at the heart of the motivation for the reversion. Can this be so? Was there perhaps a less noble motive for the method chosen? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Read the policy, and quit trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what trolling means but as it's likely to be unflattering I'll not ask for an explanation. Regarding policy, it seems that Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves is the method that ought to have been employed. Did this in fact happen? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. Only small changes had been made since the cut-and-paste, so the effort involved in splitting and re-combining the history would have been disproportionate. Much simpler to revert the cut-and-paste, and allow the article to be moved properly if anyone wanted to do that ... and best to revert as soon as soon as it was spotted , rather than risking more editors making changes to cut-and-pasted version.
- The position is simple: don't do cut-and-paste moves. Rather than complaining about how it was undone, it would be better for you to simply say "sorry, my mistake, thanks for fixing it". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what trolling means but as it's likely to be unflattering I'll not ask for an explanation. Regarding policy, it seems that Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves is the method that ought to have been employed. Did this in fact happen? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Read the policy, and quit trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- But that's the very reason for my confusion. For it's clear that you know how to "move" articles, you know the naming conventions for barons and you know that you should do your research Before_moving_a_page. But despite all that, you chose to not put that knoweldge into effect. You chose to go the reversion route. One is left with the suspicion that truth and accuracy were not at the heart of the motivation for the reversion. Can this be so? Was there perhaps a less noble motive for the method chosen? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to change policy on cut-and-paste moves, this is not the place to argue that case. Go to Wikipedia:MOVE#Before_moving_a_page, read the policy, and then state your case on the talk page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- So a proper "move" process is to be preferred to an improper cutting-and-pasting even if that results in an incorrect name for the article? I thought the goal here was to communicate knowledge. The processes are invisible to the user. Since when does a superior process trump the truth? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not strange at all: the correct process was "move", but you did not do that. Cutting-and-pasting break the revision history which is legally necessary for copyright purposes, and I was undoing a cut-and-paste. If you had actually moved the page rather than cutting-and-pasting, I would not have reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused here. If user BrownHairedGirl knows that "Baron Cahir" is the correct title and further knows that "move" is the proper process, then why did user BrownHairedGirl revert the article to an improper title of "Baron of Cahir"? It would be helpful if the user BrownHairedGirl could explain the motivation for such behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the move may be redundant as the superior title of Earl of Glenarm has precedence over Baron Cahir. The article name should probably reflect that fact. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.