Talk:English feudal barony: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Created page with '==move== A more usual title would be '''Feudal barony (England)'''. For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —~~~~'
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==move==
==move==
A more usual title would be '''Feudal barony (England)'''. For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
A more usual title would be '''Feudal barony (England)'''. For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
:My intention was to create a twin article with [[List of Scottish feudal baronies]]. If the title must be changed I would therefore prefer "List of English feudal baronies". In truth I think the existing title is preferable, as it's more than a list, it discusses the concept of the barony too. It is not about a single entity, the barony, as your suggested title implies, but about several of them, being a list, hence my use of the plural. All debateable points, but that was my reasoning. ([[User:Lobsterthermidor|Lobsterthermidor]] ([[User talk:Lobsterthermidor|talk]]) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Revision as of 03:45, 23 November 2010

move

A more usual title would be Feudal barony (England). For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to create a twin article with List of Scottish feudal baronies. If the title must be changed I would therefore prefer "List of English feudal baronies". In truth I think the existing title is preferable, as it's more than a list, it discusses the concept of the barony too. It is not about a single entity, the barony, as your suggested title implies, but about several of them, being a list, hence my use of the plural. All debateable points, but that was my reasoning. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]