This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting 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.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Is there any chance someone could work in that the Diggers would not have called St. George's Hill by that name? They did not recognize saints and therefore called it simply "George Hill." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.12.120.61 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutral as proposed. There's a case for adding a disambiguator, but I don't think "radicals" is the best choice. As a political term, it's more associated with the nineteenth century and later - see Radicalism (historical) and Radical Party. I'd recommend something more neutral, such as "political movement". Tevildo (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on current arguments but I'm not averse to changing my mind. I'm not astonished that Diggers currently goes to the True Levellers. My reading of WP:PLURALPT is that this is a proper name in the plural and therefore fine. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), Diggers is an exception to the usual naming rule because the specific title only exists in the plural. I think a better comparison than cuts / dockers / threads would then be other political groups such as Levellers, which has a disambig page at Levellers (disambiguation). Diggers (disambiguation) (currently hatnoted) goes to to Digger which is a disambig page and that seems OK. I would be surprised if Diggers went to, for example, Excavators because we are an encyclopedia, WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The disambiguation page places this article under the improper header "organizations." This is a bad characterization for a radical political group during the 17th century English Civil War. It should probably be under a new header "History" in that disambiguation page. As for the article title, it could be, for example, Diggers (English Civil War radical group). warshy(¥¥)22:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mujinga. The only real competitor I see on the DAB page is excavator, but digger is a rather informal synonym. This seems like a reasonable primary topic for an encyclopedia. If it were to be moved, I think there is a better option than that proposed, True Levellers. —Srnec (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PLURALPT as well as "digger" being an unusual way to look up the article on excavator anyway, making me inclined to think that very few of excavator's views came from people who simultaneously used "digger" as well as inexplicably pluralized it to look it up. In plural form, the group is the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note on labelling the Diggers "Protestants": this is very problematic. Winstanley certainly didn't define himself as a Protestant, and wrote in opposition to the churches of his time - see https://www.diggers.org/diggers/religion_winstanley.htm for an overview of the secondary literature on this. Regardless of one's exact interpretation of it, he was quite explicit on the apostate status of the present churches, including Protestant ones.
