Difference between revisions 9000962 and 9036319 on enwiki

⏎
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="vfd" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
'''A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]][[Template:Vfd|.]]''' <br >This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see '''[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|this page's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|votes for deletion]] page for details. Also see [[Wikipedia:Alternative outlets|possible outlets for removed articles]]. If you feel deletion is not justified by Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] you may vote against its deletion. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted.
</div >
[[Category:Pages on votes for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]⏎
Phrase referring to a long, drawn out, and somewhat incomprehensible debate over the proper presentation and formatting of [[United Kingdom|British]] [[peerage]]s.  The origins of the debate are murky at best, but seem to have revolved over how to best name articles concerning peers who were best known by their common names (i.e. [[Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell]]).  The debate played out over several weeks on the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage|WikiProject_Peerage]] page, the few insistent voices of the history majors being drowned out by a chorus of uninformed but very determined wikipedians.  The eventual result, a split vote on the matter, was regarded as a success by both sides.  The very determined wikipedians considered that they had won, and retired to their various caves.  The historians realized that no one would ever pay attention to them again, and gamely carried on.