Talk:Marquess of Halifax

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Savile Baronets → Marquess of Halifax — This page was created in 2004 under the title "Marquess of Halifax"
It was moved to “Savile Baronets” in January 2007 with the edit summary,

"moved to Savile Baronets as the baronetcy was extant the longest"

and restored to the original title a couple of weeks later with the response

"when all titles are extinct, the article goes at the highest title"

Which matches the relevant guideline. It was moved again to "Savile Baronets" a few weeks ago, this time with no explanation, and edited in such a way that the move could not be reversed.
It is therefore necessary to propose it be moved back to its original title via WP:RM. Swanny18 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support It is customary to have these combined pages on a single family's titles called by the highest and most notable title. Here, the Trimmer, the King's Minister and political theorist, is more notable than the rest of the family rolled into a ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as the title would be misleading; the article is about all of the Savile Baronets, and not just those who were also Marquess of Halifax. The "relevant guideline" is only about combining peerage articles (not baronetcies), and was presumably written to discourage creation of separate articles for subsidiary titles. Peter E. James (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The reason the article is currently about the Savile Baronets is that the editor who peremptorily moved the page also re-wrote it to match the title he/she favoured, also without any discussion (See original version, here; this needs restoring, too). And where the guideline says "If titles share an article, the article should be at the highest title, except when there is a lesser currently extant title", I am presuming it was written that way because it means exactly that. Swanny18 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the solution is to split the article. Peter E. James (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The guideline is clear on where articles such as this should be. (And pointless splitting is precisely what the guideline is designed to avoid.) Proteus (Talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It isn't clear, as a baronetcy is not a peerage and that guideline only applies to pages on peerages (which this one isn't). The purpose of article titles is to accurately identify topics, and this proposal (and the support for it) suggests that guidelines are more important than accuracy. Peter E. James (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The guideline doesn't explicitly address this issue, but the principle is abundantly clear. And although the rule being referred to is under the section on peerages, the guideline itself is on both peerages and baronetcies. I can see absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to treat baronetcies that became subsumed in peerages any differently to junior peerages that became subsumed in more senior peerages. Proteus (Talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Although this one didn't just become subsumed, as there were three baronets after the peerage was extinct. Peter E. James (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, "guideline only applies to pages on peerages (which this one isn't)"? Have you read the article past the first sentence? Even with a wholesale deletion and rewrite it describes the Marquessate of Halifax, which (last time I looked) was a peerage. So in what way isn’t this page about a peerage? Swanny18 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest Wikipedia has room for two separate articles here.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe; but this page should be restored to its original title.

It was written with "Marquess of Halifax" in mind, and the whole edit history up to a few weeks ago is on that subject. If the editor who made the move wants to write an article at "Savile Baronets" and can find enough to say about it I’ve no particular objection, but if some bright spark wants to merge them in six months time, it ought to be the new page that has to justify its existence, not this one. Swanny18 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to talk of "this page" in the ever-changing swirl that is Wikipedia. I suggest leaving the page with its current content (as I write) under the "Savile Baronets" title, since that seems to match its scope, then creating a separate article (perhaps using an old version of this page, from before when someone started writing about the other Baronets) titled Marquess of Halifax. Or if it makes you feel any better (the end result will be the same): revert this page to a past version, rename it to its former title, and use the baronetized version of the page to start a new page at Savile Baronets. (Obviously with appropriate attribution notes in the edit history, whichever option is chosen.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The move doesn't just affect the current article contents, more importantly it also affects the page history. This page should be restored to the title that matches its original topic. If there's to be a split, then work from that base. Otherwise, we will have needlessly split the history from the content. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2011 (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.