Talk:William Ros, 2nd Baron Ros
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editthis reads like it was cut and paste from another source. if so, what is the original reference? is it under copyright? Wolfman 17:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Suggested Move
edit- 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: page moved. A technical move. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros – The page Baron de Ros [1] lists all the Barons, but began erroneously with Robert de Ros as the 1st Baron. On the Talk page [2] for Baron de Ros I've set out the reasons for renaming, beginning with William de Ros as the 1st Baron. I've moved most of the pages, but was unable to move this one, presumably because there is already an existing page with that name. NinaGreen (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this is a malformed multimove request, there is a related request at Talk:William de Ros, 4th Baron de Ros that is dependent on this one. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, I'm new to this. I considered attempting a multimove request, but wasn't quite sure how to do it so I submitted the three requests separately. In addition to the two move requests mentioned by 70.24.248.246 above, there a third one earlier in the queue requesting that Thomas de Ros, 10th Baron de Ros, be moved to Thomas de Ros, 9th Baron de Ros. See the Talk page at [3]. NinaGreen (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment you might ask at WT:RM for someone to fix the situation so that the two linked moves are discussed together (or that all three are discussed together, as I gather, they are related) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the suggestion. I've now done that. See [4]. NinaGreen (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment you might ask at WT:RM for someone to fix the situation so that the two linked moves are discussed together (or that all three are discussed together, as I gather, they are related) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 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.