Talk:Viscount Castlecomer

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)

---

Viscount Castlecomer → Earl Wandesford —

• Peerage articles are always named after the highest title, in this case Earl Wandesford. Subsidiary titles such as Viscount Castlecomer are redirects. Tryde (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Only one of the people listed at this article was ever titled "Earl Wandesford". It would thus be very odd to title the article as such. Powers ^T 13:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • True, and all but one were Viscounts Castlecomer. Therefore, I would oppose the move. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2010 (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.

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)

---

Viscount Castlecomer → Earl 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)

• 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)

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)

• Comment Gbook hits has "Viscount Castlecomer" at 190, "Baron Wandesford" at 75, "Earl Wandesford" at 28. The previous move request had a good point, all but one were Viscounts Castlecomer. That example (Viscound->Earl) would mean in this case "Earl Castlecomer", which is nonexistent. Do you have more examples? --Zoupan 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I didn't think this would be so problematic. More examples: Marquess of Crewe, Earl Sydney, Viscount Blundell and Viscount Templewood. Tryde (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  The best thing to do might be to scrape together a stub for the one and only Earl Wandesford. Then, Earl Wandesford could redirect to that article, which seems to be the usual practice for titles held by one and only one person. Anyone know something about the electoral politics of County Kilkenny and Callan borough in the latter half of the 1700s? Choess (talk) 14:50, 31 July 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.