-
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
– As far as I can see, "royalist" is a descriptive term here, and starting it with a capital letter does not seem appropriate. Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Alternatively, we might consider renaming Stafford Fairborne (royalist), George Porter (royalist), Thomas Lucas (royalist), etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
Weak Oppose. The name "Royalist" specifically identifies a supporter of Charles I, as opposed to a supporter of monarchy in general, and the uncapitalized form may be confusing. Supporters of Cromwell currently use (Parliamentarian) as a disambiguator (egJohn Rolle (Parliamentarian)) - changing this to (parliamentarian) would just suggest, to the casual reader, that the person in question was a member of parliament, rather than indicating a specific affiliation. I would argue that, for articles within the same general topic, consistency is desirable (so, "royalist" and "parliamentarian" or "Royalist" and "Parliamentarian", not one lower-case and the other upper-case). Compare "republican" (a supporter of republican government in general) and "Republican" (a member of the Republican Party, or a supporter of Irish Republicanism). Tevildo (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
-
All three of the lowercase "(royalist)" articles that I mentioned (Stafford Fairborne (royalist), George Porter (royalist), Thomas Lucas (royalist)) also seem to have been supporters of Charles I. Should we move articles in the other direction? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
Yes, I would support moving articles using the lower-case disambiguator to upper-case. Tevildo (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
I believe there are eight of them altogether – the three listed above, and Francis Fane (royalist), Robert Howard (royalist), Michael Hudson (royalist), William Vaughan (royalist), and John Winter (royalist). I have tagged the Talk pages of all of them as being involved in this RM discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
We probably also need to add:
-
William Cage (parliamentarian)
-
Thomas Cooper (parliamentarian)
-
John Hippisley (parliamentarian)
-
James Nelthorpe (parliamentarian)
-
Richard Onslow (parliamentarian)
-
William Roberts (parliamentarian)
-
There are also seven articles disambiguated with (Cavalier) and thirty disambiguated with (Roundhead), but they're probably outside of the scope of this discussion. Thomas Strickland (cavalier) is the only (cavalier) disambiguator, and no articles are disambiguated with (roundhead). Tevildo (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
I have tagged the Talk pages of all of those "(parliamentarian)" articles as being involved in this RM discussion. Please note also that I made a related comment at Talk:Roundhead#Actual political party names just before submitting this RM request. There has been no response to that comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose. In this case, "Royalist" is the conventional name of a faction. It is not a mere descriptor of the individual's politics. It is more akin to Republican or Liberal after a name. There may be a better method of disambiguation, however. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose. Agree with Srnec. The faction is described in literature with a cap 'R'. You could possibly use 'Cavalier', though that was the opposition description. Neils51 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
