Talk:Thomas Dalziel

This article has multiple issues

The text as it was previously was an almost direct lift from the one source I have found so far for this engraver. I have done a quick rewrite to deal with the copyright vilation, added the reference, a reflist and removed the previous "unsourced" template, replcing it with an "article issues" template. I have my doubts about this subject's notability. If the article remains it will need a lot of work but this is all I have time for right now.--Plad2 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ONE Brothers Dalziel page

Seems like the Dalziels worked as a family business. Rather than having this page or any other paragraph-length pages let's just merge them all. We already have a Brothers Dalziel page so why not expand that one rather than making lots of little seperate ones. VictorianChild (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Better to expand each article, a similar example would be the Grimm brothers and the Brothers Grimm. Merging biographies is problematic, and each are expandable. The page Brothers Dalziel could include mention of other workers at the firm, I think the house's imprimatur might appear on works that no Dalziel brother touched. cygnis insignis 05:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave as separate pages for now. There's room for expansion on all the pages and no compelling reason to merge the individuals with the firm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This would be more credible as a separate page if an image could be added. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dalziel_Brothers In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Move request

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 moved, distinguish with hatnote -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Thomas Dalziel (engraver) → Thomas Dalziel – As the other person who might be known by this name is normally known as Tam (or Thomas) Dalyell, I suggest that this person is the primary meaning. General Tam Dalyell of the Binns can be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose The problem is that 50% of Google Book hits for "Thomas Dalziel" still refer to the general. As you say the bio should have had a hatnote: I have added To be distinguished from Sir Thomas Dalziel of Binns, known as Tam Dalyell of the Binns, which will be needed whichever way this RM goes. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly 50%? I doubt it. I have tried internet searches with Google and Yahoo and the results are not particularly clear-cut, distorted by various factors including some current minor figures of this name. If most references really are to the 17th century general then I suggest we should treat him as the primary meaning and the engraver as a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we are on different wavelengths, but the Google books search I tried mainly turned up hits for the engraver, see http://www.google.com/search?q=thomas+dalziel&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 PatGallacher (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - simply because I can't think of a compelling argument to move - and he was an engraver, so it's fine to have that, I think. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The argument to move is that he is the primary topic and therefore the qualifier "(engraver)" is unnecessary. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Supportstriking in recognition of the updated vote below -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Currently neither entry is treated as the primary topic, and 100% of people looking for either get a disambiguation page. Whether the split is 50/50 or 65/35, having either page as the primary with a hatnote to the other will save some percentage of readers' some time, and not make a difference to the other side (they'll still just have one extra link to click.) If nobody from the general's article objects, this just makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Changing my opinion to Strongly Support, after seeing the general's article doesn't even say "Thomas Dalziel" in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InedibleHulk (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 April 2012 (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.