Talk:Reg Underhill

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Underhill, Baron Underhill → Reg Underhill – This is how he was usually known when he had his highest profile as the author of the controversial Underhill Report into Militant entryism in the Labour Party. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC). PatGallacher (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support he was only a lifepeer, not heriditary, so the title was not associated with him, until he had created a body of work that made him likely to receive a peerage. Further, he got the baronship after retiring, so was established prior to being a baron. WP:CONCISE, WP:UCN, and this is just the same as getting a KBE, since it wasn't inherited, and we don't note those in article titles. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Reg Underhill, Baron Underhill. Not well-known enough for the title to be omitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's more WP:CONCISE, has been commonly used, and doesn't seem to introduce ambiguity. But I must admit that I don't understand the rationale for including British honorifics in article titles as a matter of general practice. If there's a good reason for it, please consider me humbled by my ignorance. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Concision razor (an essay written by Yours Truly that reflects policy-based reasoning that applies here). --В²C ☎ 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous users. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.