![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have just removed half of the last sentence of the main body of the article, which read " and his longevity in office was marked with an Early Day Motion paying tribute to him in July 2006".
Having checked Parliament's EDM database, I can find no such EDM tabled in July 2006. It may be that an EDM was tabled earlier, but a less thorough search didn't throw up anything else.
If anyone wants to reinstate this note, please could they include the EDM number, preferably with a link to the releavnt EDM's on page Parliament's EDM database. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved by a rough consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy →
Tommy McAvoy — Relisting
Ronhjones
(Talk)
19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This person was an MP for 23 years, and became a government whip. He has only just been given a peerage. According to WP:NCROY, this article's title should be his ordinary name. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page for WP:NCROY. If he was simply unknown how did he get an article on Wikipedia? Can any MP, particularly one who sat for 23 years and became deputy govt. chief whip, be unknown? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have raised a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). PatGallacher ( talk) 11:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(coming here from WT:NCROY) The weird thing is that Kb says he is "unknown except as Lord McAvoy", and yet the title is not "Lord McAvoy" but something far more obscure. This is surely another of thoses cases where adherence to WP:NCROY is causing us to lose our common sense. I've honestly never heard of this guy, so I won't express an opinion on what the article should be called, but I very much doubt that it should be at its present title, which is just going to confuse almost everyone. I also find it extremely disruptive for editors to make controversial moves like this on their own back, without going through the renaming discussion process (and if someone reverts it, that tells you it's controversial, so redoing the move is really unforgivable IMO). If no consensus is reached here, then it should go back to the title it was under before.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, is his official title not "Baron McAvoy of Rutherglen"? PatGallacher ( talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be delayed pending the outcome of the discussion PatGallacher mentioned above. If the outcome is for the old standard, it will control the outcome here. If it adopts the newer one, it would complete change the nature of this discussion. Also, a completely new standard would presumably change the basis for decision here in ways we can't predict. In the end, the discussion there will either make the choice here non-controversial or completely alter its nature. Either way, it would be wasteful to continue this for the time being. Finally, it would be simpler for those of us who are participating in both discussions. Leaving the title where it is for the time being will not somehow create a consensus, and if anyone were to raise such an argument it would be dismissed as fatuous by all of us. In fact, I promise to laugh derisively if anyone so attempts. - Rrius ( talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tommy McAvoy. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have just removed half of the last sentence of the main body of the article, which read " and his longevity in office was marked with an Early Day Motion paying tribute to him in July 2006".
Having checked Parliament's EDM database, I can find no such EDM tabled in July 2006. It may be that an EDM was tabled earlier, but a less thorough search didn't throw up anything else.
If anyone wants to reinstate this note, please could they include the EDM number, preferably with a link to the releavnt EDM's on page Parliament's EDM database. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved by a rough consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy →
Tommy McAvoy — Relisting
Ronhjones
(Talk)
19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This person was an MP for 23 years, and became a government whip. He has only just been given a peerage. According to WP:NCROY, this article's title should be his ordinary name. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page for WP:NCROY. If he was simply unknown how did he get an article on Wikipedia? Can any MP, particularly one who sat for 23 years and became deputy govt. chief whip, be unknown? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have raised a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). PatGallacher ( talk) 11:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(coming here from WT:NCROY) The weird thing is that Kb says he is "unknown except as Lord McAvoy", and yet the title is not "Lord McAvoy" but something far more obscure. This is surely another of thoses cases where adherence to WP:NCROY is causing us to lose our common sense. I've honestly never heard of this guy, so I won't express an opinion on what the article should be called, but I very much doubt that it should be at its present title, which is just going to confuse almost everyone. I also find it extremely disruptive for editors to make controversial moves like this on their own back, without going through the renaming discussion process (and if someone reverts it, that tells you it's controversial, so redoing the move is really unforgivable IMO). If no consensus is reached here, then it should go back to the title it was under before.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, is his official title not "Baron McAvoy of Rutherglen"? PatGallacher ( talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be delayed pending the outcome of the discussion PatGallacher mentioned above. If the outcome is for the old standard, it will control the outcome here. If it adopts the newer one, it would complete change the nature of this discussion. Also, a completely new standard would presumably change the basis for decision here in ways we can't predict. In the end, the discussion there will either make the choice here non-controversial or completely alter its nature. Either way, it would be wasteful to continue this for the time being. Finally, it would be simpler for those of us who are participating in both discussions. Leaving the title where it is for the time being will not somehow create a consensus, and if anyone were to raise such an argument it would be dismissed as fatuous by all of us. In fact, I promise to laugh derisively if anyone so attempts. - Rrius ( talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tommy McAvoy. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)