Talk:George Young, Baron Young of Cookham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 14 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Young → George Young, Baron Young of Cookham – The previous RM debate was closed as moving to Sir George Young as a compromise. However, only one contributor actually backed this. Of the other contributors, one wanted it to remain at George Young (politician), two wanted it moved to the proposed title of George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, one supported a move to George Young, Baron Young of Cookham or Sir George Young, 6th Baronet, and one was happy with George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, Sir George Young, 6th Baronet or George Young (politician). I have no idea why, therefore, it was moved to its current title, which we usually avoid. Yes, he is most commonly known as Sir George Young; however, many knights and baronets (probably the majority) are commonly known as "Sir Foo Foo". Yet almost none of our articles are titled this way. WP:NCPEER is perfectly clear on what the article title should be. Given we do need to disambiguate his name, it should be at either his peerage title or his baronetage title. There is no problem with this whatsoever and the clear majority of contributors to the previous discussion actually supported the former as the higher title. The close should have been challenged at the time as not resembling the actual outcome of the discussion in any way and essentially a "supervote" on the part of the closer which was only supported by the opinion of a single contributor to the discussion. I see no reason whatsoever to go against our longstanding accepted guidelines for this single solitary individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per nom ("Yes, he is most commonly known as Sir George Young"), and WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCPEER makes some implied allowances for WP:COMMONNAME, but does not go far enough, IMHO. In any case, WP:NCPEER should be consistent with, not contradict, WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. Since the closure of the above-mentined February 2016 RM did not follow the nomination nor did it indicate "No consensus to move", it should have been appealed at WP:Move review. Sir George Young is, indeed, the least desirable form for this article's main title header which either should have remained as George Young (politician) or should have been then (and should be now) moved to the original (and current) proposal, George Young, Baron Young of Cookham. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME. I did not participate in the previous move request and while the previous discussions close was dubious (however I do not share Roman Spinner's assertion that this should have been taken to move review given the close was over a year ago!), I do actually think that the article has ended up at the correct title. The individual in question spent 41 years of his political career known as Sir George Young including the entirety of both his stints in the Cabinet and the shadow cabinet in the interim. While since September 2016 he has served as the Government's Treasury spokesperson this is in reality a very minor role, especially given that the House of Lords has in effect no powers over 'Money Bills' at all. Ebonelm (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to specify, "it should have been appealed at the time at WP:Move review." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all the participants from the previous move request for comments this time: Editor FIN, AusLondonder, Keri, The Traditionalist, BrownHairedGirl, Mackensen. Ebonelm (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl, if the article moves from it's currently title you can't seriously think that the politican doesn't qualify for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The admiral is a stub of only three lines! Ebonelm (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebonelm, I do hope that you were only joking in your apparent suggestion that the state of a Wikipedia article is evidence of the significance of a topic. The naval officer was the architect of the colonisation of New South Wales, and has at least as great a claim to primacy as an undistingushed cabinet minister. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the Oxford DNB has articles on 4 ppl called Sir George Young, who would all meet GNG: the naval officer, plus three others. Only recentism would place the politician as primary over that set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl while the state (or for that matter the length) of a Wikipedia article is not evidence of the significance of a topic it can very often be indicative of significance. Australian editors (and of course other editors interested in Australian history) are pretty active on Wikipedia so clearly the naval officer is not considered overly significant as his role in Australia is not mentioned once on his article. The naval officer was only one of a large group of individuals (of whom there were many more significant participants) who lobbied on this matter, he was by no stretch of the imagination the "architect of the colonisation". Ebonelm (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebonelm: maybe he would be better described as "one of the architects". But the fact remains that the DNB's limited selection of biogs includes no less than four people called "Sir George Young". I note that you make no claim for the politician to be primary over those 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We ended up with clear consensus to move, and that the two possible targets were both fully acceptable, but there seems a very slight preference for the original proposal. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Young, Baron Young of Cookham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Young,_Baron_Young_of_Cookham&oldid=1204913816"