This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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.
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. -
PKM19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support That's a good idea to move it. It's very silly for cavalier to redirect to one particulary form of it. -
Laserbeamcrossfire
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. ...
dave souza,
talk08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You,
Netkinetic, 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
[1] and here is your reply on my talk page
[2]. --
Philip Baird Shearer09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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 review the links I've deligently shifted to point to the cavalier specific article. This was the primary objection, 400 links towards cavalier, and these were dramatically reduced. Thank you.
NetK14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Even if you have changed all the links from Cavalier and Cavaliers that does not nullify the comment that"There are around 400 wiki pages linked to this topic" the topic is "Cavalier", as a redirect it still counts as a page linked to Cavalier. --
Philip Baird Shearer15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The definition of cavalier(s) those articles were linked to related to the subject of royalists, not towards the other variants of the term. I'd altered the links on the majority of those pages to cavaliers (royalists) as the intent of those links was towards that context specific page. Once they were redirected, the count number of 400 pages toward "cavalier(s)" would no longer apply pragmatically. I will concede that the largest majority of references to this term is relating to royalists, however it is not in and of itself exclusive, and as an encyclopedic resource our intent should be to provide accessibility. Right or wrong, "cavalier(s)" is now a term with various definitions and I feel this resource should reflect as such. However, I will concede to consensus if upon further review the above due deligence has not substainably removed objections towards the move.
NetK15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Fashion over political importance
This article sadly emphasizes frivolous fashion discussion over the very serious political ramifications of the Cavalier political faction.
Dogru14415:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Cavalier isn't really used as a political term, or not consistently, by modern historians, afaik, leaving the fashion and cultural side.
Johnbod (
talk)
00:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)reply
first paragraph
"Cavalier was the name used by Parliamentarians for a Royalist supporter of King James I during the English Civil War (1642–1651)."
In the mid 17th century party did not mean political party as it came to mean after the Glorious Revolution. I removed the box because Cavalier did not just mean or mainly mean political party it meant a faction in the civil war. --
PBS (
talk)
18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Cavalier. 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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have a question: Why does the roundhead page have much better definitions and state the goals of that party while this one for cavaliers doesn't? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.221.136.71 (
talk)
05:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
What is this article about?
This article looks like a terrible mess, the reader can hardly understand what is its subject.
Is it about the political faction? But the only historical hint available here is that they were royalists active during the British Civil Wars!
Is it about the clothing fashion? Then one would expect a more elaborate discourse than a single line (history of fashion, social significance, etc.)
Most of the article (especially the "Social perception" section) would be better defined as the description of a 17th century's stereotype, which I don't know how to properly categorize.
At the present state it doesn't match any of those tags, it's neither fish nor flesh, and it's confusing for a reader. We better give it soon a major revamping. --
109.119.232.105 (
talk)
18:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply