Talk:Cavalier

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. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 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 --Philip Baird Shearer 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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. - PKM 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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 Seems very sensible indeed. Vanky 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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.Dryzen 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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, talk 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Shearer 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. NetK 14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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 Shearer 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. NetK 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is only one significant definition, and a number of derivatives. KIndly "concede to consensus" forthwith. ..dave souza, talk 08:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Dogru144 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't changed. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

first paragraph

"Cavalier was the name used by Parliamentarians for a Royalist supporter of King James I during the English Civil War (1642–1651)."

King James I???

Messier110 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

King James was introduced as an act of vandalism at 02:44, 18 November 2007. Now fixed --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.41.210.146, 10 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} If someone wouldn't mind, it would be nice to update the wikilink (under Cavalier#Cavaliers in the arts) currently referencing 1600-1650 in fashion to the page that redirects to, 1600–1650 in fashion. (Note the typographically preferred en-dash in the date range.) Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, one of the few remaining grammarians who can appreciate the subtle yet crucial distinction between the hyphen and the en dash.  Done with delight. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is this anon 71.41 ... grab him or her, bring them aboard. Tony (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Well, if you feel up to it, there are four more hyphens that could stand to be replaced:

• However, in modern times the word has become more particularly associated with the [[1600-1650 in fashion|court fashions of the period]],
• Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651
• The Concise Encyclopedia of the Revolutions and Wars of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1639-1660
• George Goring (1608-1657): Caroline Courtier and Royalist General

Sorry I missed that first one; my ambition was to eliminate all links to "1600-1650 in Fashion" from the main namespace. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of party information box

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)

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hermes.ucop.edu:8085/F/?func=direct&doc_number=027717002&current_base=CDL90&format=999
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228130758/http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf to http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's about the term, and its various connotations. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)