Talk:Viscount Castlecomer

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move? 1

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: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Viscount CastlecomerEarl Wandesford

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.

Requested move 2

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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Viscount CastlecomerEarl Wandesford – I'll try this again. Articles on peerages are normally named after the highest title, also when there was only one holder of that title (in reply to some of the comments above). Examples are Viscount D'Abernon, Viscount Lyons and Earl Canning. As I said above subsidiary titles such as Viscount Castlecomer are redirects. Tryde (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment unlike Lyons and Canning, there's been more than one of each. And D'Abernon existed in modern times, unlike this title. I personally think that the rank used should be that which is most used by the holders, such as what is usually done with shipnames, where the length of service usually determines the name used, if notability is roughly equal -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said there is a system used and this article should be no exception. There are other examples such as Earl Castleton. Tryde (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2012 (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.