Talk:MacCarthy dynasty

Untitled

Where is the evidence for this assertion: and is in fact the most common of all the names which uses the prefix Mac or Mc, meaning son of? If a citation is not provided I'm going to delete it. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacCarthy Mór hoax

Shouldn't some mention of this http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm be made in the article? An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly controversial, as adherents of the fraudster are still around and liable to vandalise any entry. But yes, it should be mentioned. Ncox001 (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1092 Tadhg and Cormac adopted MacCarthy as a proper surname is wrong. they did not speak english. Tadhg and Cormac adopted MacCarthaigh as a proper surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.98.173 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining why it's mainly written McCarthy (or McCarty) in English?

If the assertion is that the clan is/was called MacCarthy in English, you need to explain why nearly everyone these days who has this surname spells it McCarthy (or McCarty to a lesser extent) in English.

Cbmccarthy (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

This is the English language wiki, not the Gaelic language wiki. Articles should use the English language. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split article and transfer "People" section.

People with the name McCarthy are more often found in North America. These people, obviously, are not connected to the archaic McCarthy Mor dynasty in the Cork County of Ireland, who ruled up until 1560. I suggest a McCarthy (Surname) page that is independent and not part of this specific dynasty of rulers. It shall be listed on the disambiguation page. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the edits, it can be observed that the People sections was purely meant for the members of the McCarthy dynasty of Ireland, not the worldwide McCarthy population. Having them here makes it seem as though as they are part of the McCarthy Mór.BurgeoningContracting (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert this page and merge.

Planning to merge with MacCarthy dynasty, which will no longer be a redirect. I am waiting for any objections. A draft is in the making. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:BurgeoningContracting. Thanks for bringin up this interesting idea. If I understand you right, you want to merge the article MacCarthy Mor dynasty (731 words) with the article McCarthy of Muskerry (399 words) and change the name to MacCarthy dynasty (or McCarthy dynasty). You say that you are already writing a draft for the merged version. I would be keen to have a look at it. Could you direct us to a location where we can see it? Articles also exist for some other branches of the MacCarthys, e.g. the Lordship of Coshmaing (763 words) and the Sliocht Cormaic of Dunguile (154 words). They should probably then also be merged. All these articles are now still quite short but have the potential to become much longer. It may be possible to make a case for keeping the articles for the branches of the family and represent them in the main article (MacCarthy dynasty) by adequate summaries. The McCarthys are certainly not the only case. Perhaps a good example could be found somewhere in Wikipedia of how a largely branching family (dynasty) should best be covered. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @Johannes Schade. I was not aware of the existence of the Cormaic or Chosmaing articles. My reasons for merging the Mor, Muskerry, and Mac Carthaigh Riabhach was that these pages were (based on my understanding) split and the users working on them left the articles incomplete and the articles have largely remained in that state (for over a decade in the Muskerry article). Additionally, the information found in each article overlap and may be considered duplicate in some, and are quite short when looking at information exclusive to that article only. Some articles had out-of-scope information that should not have been there. I had to take the list of notable people that are most definitely not related to this clan out into a dedicated surname page. After further consideration, I agree that it might be better to keep some articles for specific branches of the family and make a dynasty page with summaries. However, individual branch pages should be cleaned and to make sure their is no overlapping information. I believe the shorter articles should be integrated into the main MacCarthy dynasty page, as there is low chance of them being expanded. I have not published any versions of the draft on Wikipedia, but have saved the (very) rough draft as a local file, but my approach will depend on what level of involvement other users will have. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:BurgeoningContracting. I would agree with rather keeping separate articles about branches and create an overarching article, probably entitled MacCarthy dynasty. A group of related articles is easier to manage and it is easier to also for the collaboration of several editors. I looked a bit around and found similar "Irish dynastic" articles: Butler dynasty, FitzGerald dynasty, House of Burgh, O'Neill dynasty, O'Brien dynasty, Dalcassians etc. There are of course also other dynasties worldwide, e.g. House of Bourbon, House of Hanover, Ming dynasty etc. Many of these articles illustrate the problems and pitfalls that might be encountered. Wikipedia articles unavoidably are eternally in progress. Overlapping information also is often useful and acceptable, either as summary, e.g. in the lead, or in a different presentation, e.g. infobox, tables, illustrations, family trees. Be careful with "cleaning" and "rewriting". Look up the editors who have written the parts to be cleaned away or to be rewritten. Look at their edit counts, the articles they have created and successfully nominated to WP:GA and WP:FA. Contact them to avoid getting into conflicts and edit wars. If the texts in question lack citations, ask the authors to support their claims with citations. You can delete, clean away, and rewrite useless uncited material, after a reasonable delay, but your new text should be relevant and well supported by citations from reliable sources. Respect an established citation style if it exists, or ask for premission to change it. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have built a draft, but it is currently very much a work in progress. Feel free to take a look at it and contribute to it. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MacCarthy dynasty is now live. Thank you for your help. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, what gives for the move from MacCarthy dynasty? If you had taken the time to read and compare both versions, you would have observed that there were clearly changes to the page. In addition, have you realized what you have done? You brought incomplete back information on Kings of Desmond and McCarthy surname page. I will be reverting your edit as you clearly did not appreciate the facts surrounding this page and blatantly reverted my edits, additions, and creation of new articles. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You simply cut and paste an existing page and then made some minor changes. Then you redirected the original page into the page you had just cut and paste. Do you realize what you have done? If not, read WP:CUTANDPASTE. You'll need to request the page be moved, and then make any necessary changes to it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean cut and paste and minor changes? You need to be more diligent about reading this. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 If you must insist to continue the disruptive editing on your part, what do you want to change in order for it to stop? BurgeoningContracting (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to factually correct version

If you must insist on returning to the previous state, @ActivelyDisinterested, at least change it back to this version of the edit before the move. The current one contains information that is duplicated and has been moved to other articles. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reverting to the last unbroken version, as the version as it stood had a redirect at the top of an article. I haven't looked into the details, but it appear you were trying to undo a merge that happened in 2019 and were contested. I suggest discussing the issue per WP:BRD and leaving the articles unchanged until that discussion is complete. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for consensus when merging MacCarthy Mor MacCarthy dynasty

It appears there was opposition to the merging of MacCarthy dynasty and MacCarthy Mor due to an article move. However, I still wish to gain consensus on this. Users @Johannes Schade and @BurgeoningContracting are in agreement the article be merged with MacCarthy given there are additional edits to provide additional information regarding the clan. @Onel5969 appears to be in opposition, but I am unsure if it was because of the merge style or because he or she wishes the MacCarthy Mor branch page to remain as the page for the whole clan. The version before the revs can be found here. That version will be restored as soon as I can restore it while fixing the apparent error. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurgeoningContracting: it is disingenuous to state that "It appears there was opposition to the merging of (etc)". There was strong opposition such that your unilateral moves, cut and pasted, were reverted every time, and you were in grave fdanger of falling foul of WP:3RR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this approach. I would support your using the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers approach, designed and intended to increase participation and the formation of consensus. This is a firm suggestion for you to adopt the formal process. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BurgeoningContracting, I thought you would add an article "MacCarthy dynasty" with communalities of all branches and summaries (WP:Summary style) of the articles about the major branches, among which would figure MacCarthy Mor, MacCarthy of Muskerry, MacCarthy Reagh, and perhaps others. You said you would make a draft, so I expected that I would be able to comment on a draft before you publish. I did not agree to a merge. I warned you about possible problems with "rewriting" and "cleaning" articles without talking to the editors concerned. Have you seen the experience of the editors whose edits you reverted? I fear you do not realise that Wikipedia writing is a considerable learning curve from modest beginnings to expert editor. Read through the materials in the Welcoming on your talk page and look for examples of GA and FA articles similar to what you want to achieve. I am sorry about the misunderstanding. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade I'd like to apologize to you then, first and foremost. I was under the impression you apoeved of my merger. Yes, maybe a communal article for the clan should be in order. In that case, I will begin to work on one such article. If you know of any boards this can be discussed at or this discussion itself can be linked for the sake of consensus, please let me know. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade, I find it regrettable to say I have not been able to find additional, trustworthy information on the MacCarthy Mór specifically to be able to make an overarching article containing redirects to and containing brief sections of information concerning each branch of the clan. This means I will have to strip down and move some of the history section of the current MacCarthy Mor dynasty in order for this to work. I'm not sure how to share text on Wikipedia because my current draft is in my local files in the form of source code. If you know of a method for me to share this source code with you, I would greatly appreciate it. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz💬 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MacCarthy Mor dynasty → MacCarthy dynasty – MacCarthy Mor is the title of the current (at times perceived) head of the MacCarthy clan, not branch or family.[1] While there is a MacCarthy dynasty and branches of it, Mor is merely a title [2] and not part of the surname, identity, or history of all MacCarthy people and branches of the dynasty. [3] Having "Mor" or "Mór" in the title suggests the rest of MacCarthys bore "Mor" or "Mór" in their own or dynasty names, which is not true. The article itself has no insight into the MacCarthy Mor himself and it'd make more logical sense to rename the article MacCarthy dynasty and perhaps make a section on the details surrounding the MacCarthy Mor title itself. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's clear from the article that "Mor" is not part of the name of the dynasty, but the title of its leader. (I also recommend removing "More" from the name of the first of the eleven listed septs.) Maproom (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.