Talk:William II de Haya

Merger proposal
Merger proposal for this article to be merged with Clan Hay reasons:


 * William II de Haya seems only notable in that he is the progenitor of the Scottish clan, Clan Hay.

suggestion by Czar Brodie (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

please discuss here:

I am against this proposal for the following reasons:

1.William II de Haya is also important to the study of the reigns of Malcolm IV and William the Lion. 2. If we follow this argument to merge, then Earl of Erroll should also be merged into Clan Hay. 3. If a biography of every notable member of Clan Hay through the centuries were included, together with Earl of Erroll, then the Clan Hay article would become too long and cumbersome. It would be more appropriate to spin off daughter articles. See Broughton, J. ''Wikipedia ,the Missing Manual. pp237-240''. Some editing needs to be done to the summary of William II de Haya in Clan Hay; I am working on this.

Incidentally, section 3 of Clan Hay (Regrant of the Earl of Errol) should probably be merged into Earl of Erroll. At present, this section seems to be too extensive to be included in a general article on Clan Hay. Moreover, it fits better in the Earl of Erroll article.Inver471ness (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need to worry about daughtering off sections from the clan article just yet. The two biggest sections in it are the legend and re-grant bits and i think they appear out-of-place because at the moment we just don't have much more than a few lines written about anything else.--Celtus (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thanks for pointing out the regrant of the Earl of Errol. Forgot about this one. Was working on a larger tree to be given in cut sections throughout the article, but these trees are very time consuming. As matters stand this should be move to Earl of Erroll. It sort of pops out of the bleu in the article, it's only at the end one finds out the Earls are the chiefs. It is my opinion that many of these nobility lists actually belong in the clan articles if they are chief of the said families. But this is another argument. Conclusion, will leave the suggestion for a month or two, see how things progress, and see if others have any thoughts on the subject. Will now move regrant to earl page. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)