Talk:Wars of the Three Kingdoms

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wars of the Three Kingdoms. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040906142748/http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/wars-of-three-kingdoms-chronology-ht.asp to http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/wars-of-three-kingdoms-chronology-ht.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040925033156/http://www.templum.freeserve.co.uk/history/civilwars/scottish_civil_war.htm to http://www.templum.freeserve.co.uk/history/civilwars/scottish_civil_war.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040804213948/http://www.open2.net/civilwar/index.html to http://www.open2.net/civilwar/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Continuation of the earlier debate which achieved a consensus view that the current title was not acceptable. I offer this as a suitable replacement given its use by authorities in the subject already cited on the page. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's WP:BOLD edit to move the page from its long-standing location at Wars of the Three Kingdoms to The Civil Wars in Britain and Ireland  doesn't seem so far as I can see from previous discussions to have specific consensus (and the title has not been discussed at all for getting on for five years). Whatever some editors felt in 2006 or 2007 may well not reflect WP:COMMONNAME academic usage now. This deserves wider discussion, particularly as Wars of the Three Kingdoms is used quite widely across Wikipedia in other articles, template and category names. Personally, I'd like to see the article name reverted to its long-standing title, but I'm not an expert in this. Would be interested to hear from . MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no instance of the use of the phrase "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms" unprefaced by "Civil War" anywhere except in Wikipedia. (Please see the examples cited in the article.)The description "Civil Wars in Britain & Ireland" or "British & Irish Civil Wars"  in contrast, clearly do reflect current academic usage as found in numerous authoritative book titles and classifications of major archival collections - usually in conjunction with the date range 1637-1652 (or 1660). The inclusion of the words "Civil Wars" in the article title is essential for clarity, recognizability and continuity.WP:COMMONNAME Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Preliminary comment - I expect that I will contest this move. I'm going to go back to the sources and refresh myself, but the article has been at the previous title for a long time, and discussion should have taken place before any change. It is likely that I will revert the move, and recommend that a move discussion take place per the guidance at WP:RM. Girth Summit (blether) 11:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I've looked at this in more detail. To assert that there is consensus for a move based on a discussion from four years ago (one in which I see no such consensus) is not appropriate, so I have reverted the rename.  is welcome to propose a rename and attempt to form a consensus, but no such consensus currently exists: a discussion will need to be initiated per the directions at WP:RM. I'll add that, if a new name is proposed, it should not start with the definite article per WP:THE. Best Girth Summit (blether) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed article name change to: The Civil Wars in Britain and Ireland. 

message: Is it possible for admin to substitute  my proposed revised title as above on the article page banner?
--Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an admin, but I won't take any action here since I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED. Just noting that you can't change the proposal mid-discussion after people have commented on the original. I guess you could close thread as failed and start a new one with a new title, but you will start to wear people's patience, especially when it's clear that there is strong supoort fot the existing title. Girth Summit (blether) 15:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim that there is "strong support" for not improving an obviously problematic title as an admin puts the tin hat on it. OK, I get the message I'm out, a pity because WP is a valuable resource and deserves to be as accessible as possible.  Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how you can dismiss ten respondents to your proposal, all in opposition, as an indication of "strong support" for the rejection of your "improvements". Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I claim nothing 'as an admin' - I was explaining why I am not taking action on your request for an administrator - I'm involved, and so policy would prohibit me from responding to your request because I am involved. Adminship confers no authority in discussions of this nature; I'm claiming strong support for the existing title as an ordinary editor, based on the nine-to-one opposition to your proposal in the section above. If you meant it when you said 'I'm out', however, I'll be happy to close both threads - there's no problem with someone involved in a discussion closing it when the proposer withdraws, unless there is already substantial support for it. Girth Summit (blether) 16:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text: This is nothing more or less than a request for an administrator to abuse their powers by either (at best) preempting the outcome of a discussion still in progress or (at worst) unilaterally overturning a consensus which has already formed. I am therefore declining the request. JBW (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text: It seems that  may not have intended the message above to mean what I read it as meaning. I read "substitute my proposed revised title as above on the article page banner" as meaning "substitute my proposed revised title, which is above and on the article page banner, in place of the existing article title", but it seems to have meant "substitute my proposed revised title, which I have suggested above in the course of discussion, in place of the proposed title in the article page banner". If my new reading is the correct one, I apologise for having responded on the basis of my earlier misreading of the request. However, I  think a comment by  above fully answers the request: "you can't change the proposal mid-discussion after people have commented on the original". Also, administrators have no more authority to make such changes. JBW (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for administrator 

message: Azkm (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename this talk page to The Romance of the Atlantic Archipelago