Talk:Abdy baronets

Give individual Abdys their own page?

I'd like to give several of the Abdys on this page their own wikipage, which is why I put the split template (though I'm not sure that's exactly right) on it. At the moment several individuals redirect to this page, though there are categories categorising those individuals on their redirect pages, which isn't standard. Anyone have thoughts on this? Dsp13 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of them had own articles some time ago, however were redirected and merged into the article about the baronetcy itself because of missing notability (see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage/Archived_talk_6#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup). ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just came across this because of the split tag. I've taken a look at the archieved discussion posted above and WP:PEER main page and it seems that this article should follow these agreed principles:

The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. Which should include: The history of the title and associated titles, The remainder (i.e., the rule for inheritance of the title), A list of the holders of the titles and of the associated titles. Baronets which fail to meet WP:notability can also contain a short description of important information. Articles on non-notable baronets should not be created, and if found to exist, should be merged to the apropriate baronetcy article. Where an existing article on a baronet is about someone non-notable, the article should not be deleted; the information should be merged into the baronetcy article, and the baronet-article made into a redirect which itself is categorised under the approriate baronets category (e.g. Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England).

This pretty much voids the need for a split, so I'm going to remove the tag. I'm also going to attempt to add the required information about this 'title', so that it fits the above criteria.- France3470 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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. 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: Move all. While this is not the most widely participated RM of all time, it's been open for almost a month with no opposition and several supporters. I'll make a bot request for implementing the actual moves since this affects a huge number of pages. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Abdy Baronets → Abdy baronets
• Acland Baronets → Acland baronets
• Acton Baronets → Acton baronets

– Common noun:a baronet is a baronet not a Baronet, a group of baronets is similarly not a group of Baronets, when they share the same lineage they remain a grouping of baronets not Baronets. As part of a proper name capitalisation is used, but not when a common noun. See List of extant baronetcies etc. This move request applies to all similarly-named articles and a couple of categories which share the same fault. Brought here as possibly controversial as one of my moves has been reverted. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC). Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The nomination is completely reasonable and I was expecting to support, but I had a look at Category:Baronetcies and it appears that every "X Baronets" article has a capitalised "B". Would suggest starting a wider discussion concerning all "Baronets" articles, rather than making these three outliers among thousands. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • See my proposal above This move request applies to all similarly-named articles and a couple of categories which share the same fault. I couldn't see the point in listing all of them, though I will move all should consensus be reached. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I've struck my oppose. It's several thousand articles, though. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title is purely descriptive and therefore a common noun (as opposed to its use as the name of a club, rock band, or football club). All of them should be lower case. First Light (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support My reaction is similar to Crusoe8181's. Seems like a pretty straightforward move, but it might be better to get a larger discussion and consensus, and compile a complete list of articles with the same issue and agree to collectively change them all at once. EDIT: Clarifying I support in consideration of the fact that this is the discussion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• I raised the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Tryde (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – and my thanks to nom for being willing to do the work... Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 22 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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abdy baronets/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Improvements needed for the article Improve formatting Add information

Last edited at 05:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)