Talk:Armigers, Essex

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Armigers, Essex → Armigers — Armigers currently redirects to Armiger (as Armigers is plural of Armiger). Could we not just put a hatnote for Armiger as I don't see why it is the more likely search tearm. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Became armiger and armigerous are used, if rarely, all over the English-speaking world; this hamlet (what are the sources on it? what's its population?) is spoken of rarely - in Essex. Oppose unless there is evidence of primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support a judicious hat note would fix any issues here and allow this article to be at its common name. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The principle of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE requires two things:
    1. That Word W be the common name for subject S
    2. That Subject S be meant by Word W the great majority of the time.
       • These are not the same thing; here (1) is true and (2) would appear to be false. We should no more title this Armigers than we should title Phoenix, Arizona simply Phoenix; too many readers will want the mythical bird. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The word we are discussing here is "Armigers" not "Armiger". As a rule articles should be at their common name, which for the village is "Armigers" and for the heraldry term is "Armiger". If a variation to this common sense rule is thought to be necessary in a particular case, then it should be incumbent on the editors who propose the variation to show that it is necessary. You make a hand waving gesture towards the primary usage of "Armigers" being the heraldry term but provide no evidence at all that this is actually the case. Indeed, you place the burden of proof on the editors who want both articles to be at their respective common names. I have never heard of either the place or the heraldry term before (we Australians have little time for those vestiges of feudalism) so unless you can convince me otherwise with solid evidence, I am entirely unconvinced that people keying in "Armigers" will be more interested in the heraldry term than the place. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It is a bad idea to disambiguate purely on the difference between singular and plural, for the same reason that we discourage disambiguation by capitalization: few readers will realize that it is meant to be significant. We should have singular or plural titles (usually singular), but not both; searchers, even for the village, are likely to assume that Armigers is a redirect to Armiger, as it is now, because that's how we usually do things. They will click on Armigers, Essex.
      • As for the other, one need merely look. Armigers and Essex are mentioned in 58 books, and most of those are false positives: the family after which the hamlet is named, or the common noun; armigers and heraldry are mentioned in 440 books, seven times as many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 17 January 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.