Talk:Karl Gotthelf von Hund

Move

May I ask concerning the rationale about this recent move from a standard biographical article about a notable individual to this somewhat peculiar and particular name? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry#Karl_Gotthelf_von_Hund. The "standard biographical article" was two sentences long three days ago. As Hund is only notable for the one phenomenon, it seemed to make sense to merge the articles.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to the fact that there wasn't even a link posted on the talk pages of the involved articles to the discussion at the Masonry Project. The proper place for a merger discussion is at the discussion pages of the articles themselves.

I can see that there are good reasons for a merger, but I do not agree to a renaming of the Karl Gotthelf von Hund article. The current title is simply not encyclopedic, and the Strict Observance information could easily have been added to the biographical article without any need to rename it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point, in fact you may have noted that this was my original suggestion when merger was mentioned. I also note that yours is the only edit that added substantial content to the article between the creation of the stub to my expansion from the German Wikipedia. I'm afraid this led me to suppose that nobody else particularly cared. Since you have no objection to the merger, our only point of friction is the name. I am unable to see why this prevents the sensible redirection of Rite of Strict Observance.

The rest is my inexperience with Wikipedia. I asked for advice, I thought I had followed it, I missed the help page. For this, I apologise unreservedly.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Regarding mergers it is best to go through the proper channels as explained on Wikipedia:Merging. After all there may be editors who have watchlisted the article, and who haven't made any edits to it, yet still holds strong opinions regarding relatively large changes such as this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find the merge discussion. I don't think this use of "and" in an article title is normal (i.e. covered by the types of exception mentioned at WP:AND). Do we have consensus to rename this back to Karl Gotthelf von Hund] (i.e move over redirect)? Since the redirect has since been edited, I believe this requires administrator action. --Boson (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have consensus, now we just need to contact and admin to carry it out. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)