Talk:Tommy McAvoy

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

requested move

. 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 move request was: page moved by a rough consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until three weeks ago, NCROY said a person had to be "exclusively" known by the given name despite the peerage; User:Kotniski changed it without any discussion whatsoever, so I've restored it to what it was for years (including the bold typeface). McAvoy is simply not well enough known that he will be exclusively known as "Tommy McAvoy"; he is no Anthony Eden or Margaret Thatcher. -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back: little discussion among a few like-minded individuals. That should absolutely have been publicised to a wider audience. It is a policy that goes back to the very early days of the naming convention, and the resulting policy frankly doesn't make sense. Specific naming conventions exist as exceptions to the default rule of common name, but what you lot created was a policy that essentially says, "here's an exception to COMMONNAME, but it does not apply when another name is more common." -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rrius is absolutely right. Lord McAvoy will from now on be known principally as a member of the House of Lords. Previously and commonly he is simply unknown. Therefore the article is correctly named. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for

He is not generally known. There is a difference between being well known and being notable. Rodrigo dos Santos, a water polo player, is notable, but not well known. I'm sure as an experienced editor you already realise that. If you can't see a difference between someone like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, or even Jack Straw, and Tommy McAvoy or Pat McLaughlin, I don't know what to say. -Rrius (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support the proposed move. I feel sure he is better known as Tommy McAvoy and would have to make a significant impact in the Lords before a case is made for the present title. Deb (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Unknown except as Lord McAvoy. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If McAvoy isn't to be called by his peerage, who is? -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(coming here from

Also, is his official title not "Baron McAvoy of Rutherglen"? PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. His title is "Baron McAvoy". His territorial designation is "of Rutherglen in Lankashire". Contrast that with the President of the Supreme Court, whose title is "Baron Philips of Worth Maltravers" and whose territorial designation is "of Belsize Park in the London Borough of Camden". -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose pending the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). The convention may need clarification or changing, but let's see where it stands after the RFC is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral (changing my !vote). I opposed the change pending the outcome of a discussion which turned out to be inconclusive, so we're back where we started. Where there are alternative name forms, I generally I prefer to go for the less ambiguous ones, but in this particular case we have an unusual combination of a name which does not seem to be ambiguous on wikipedia, and where a Google search for "Tommy McAvoy" gives him gives him all but one of the first 20 hits. As a Whip for almost all of his parliamentary career, McAvoy naturally had a low profile (whips don't usually speak in debates), so while Kittybrewster was wrong to describe him as "unknown", he was not well-known. If he establishes himself in the Lords, it would not take much for him to become better known as "Lord McAvoy" ... so there's an argument to be made either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is being relisted, and since the discussion at WT:NCROY was inconclusive, I'm going to consider this case on its merits and support the proposed move back to the shorter form (i.e. oppose the move that was made out of process). Apart from the arguments already advanced, here we have the additional factor that "Tommy" and "Baron" don't mix - Tommy (rather than Thomas) is colloquial, whereas Baron (rather than Lord) is highly formal. The long title we currently have is neither one thing nor the other - it really can only be read as two completely different names strung together, which is not how we name articles on Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the proposed title is the one under which he gained his fame and the one which readers are most likely to recognize. Powers ^T 14:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I recently moved the Jack McConnell article back to its original place after it was moved in simliar circumstances, we should wait to see if Tommy becomes known by his peerage title before moving the page.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.