" 

 ==Requested move== 

 :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  

 The result of the debate was move. Do not revert this move. —  Seen this already?  
 Cavaliers (royalists)  → Cavalier Primary meaning of the word. ""Cavaliers (royalists)"" was moved from Cavaliers yesterday, before the name had one plural now it has two! There are around 400 wiki pages linked to this topic none of the others pages  with the word Cavalier in them come close to that number of links   

 ===Survey=== 
 :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ 

  
 ::*Support  Makes perfect sense to me. Standard should be to use the singular form in its most common meaning as the base article. -   
 ::*Support That's a good idea to move it.  It's very silly for cavalier to redirect to one particulary form of it. -  
 ::*Support Seems very sensible indeed.   
 ::*Oppose In truth I support a move but not nessecerily this move. ""Cavaliers (royalists)"" does need some changing, yet with all the cavalier (disambiguation) it seems improper to be placing this article as the Calavier. Cavaliers, as presented in the intorduction and on the Roundheads article seems like a sound alternative.  
 :Done. —  Seen this already?  
 ::*Support a move that seems to have been properly made, then improperly reverted. The primary meaning is the royalist one, the others are derivative and minor. A search on the Paladin and Cavalry pages finds no mention of the word in articles that are supposedly a disambiguation of its meaning. Oddly, there is no mention of cavalier as an adjective which refers to the supposed attitude of the royalists. As said before, the standard should be the singular most common usage, which this clearly is. ...,   

 ==Further discussion== 

 Oppose Per above comment from Dryzen, pointing Cavalier(s) to this specific instance, albeit the apparent original occurence of this term. In addition, I've redirected all the instances of the above 400 to Cavaliers (royalists).  Perhaps a double plural is invalid however having fixed each of the links to point to the specific article seems to fit the criteria above, so I'll move if there is not objection. NetK  

 :You, , moved the page to ""Cavaliers (royalists)"" at 02:03, 29 April 2006, less than a minute after you posted the above. That does not seem to me a sufficient time to see if ""there is not objection"" to you reverting a WP:RM move! I object strongly to your reversion. This was an agreed WP:RM move, of which I informed you personally on the day I proposed the move   and here is your reply on my talk page .   

 ::My apologies Philip, you are correct that more time would have been appropriate. Definitely if there are substainable objections then it should revert to to point to royalist rather than disambiguation. I would ask, however, the you revie