Talk:O'Dea

Move page from Ua Déaghaidh (which is a misspelling, in any case) to the English form, O'Dea.[edit]

The Old Irish version of the Irish surname Ó Deághaidh is Ua Deághaidh. The very article title (Clan Ua Déaghaidh) is misspelt right now! The name Ua Deághaidh is misspelt consistently throughout the article by the American contributor who initiated the page

Spelling of the Irish form: The síneadh fada (accent) lies on the letter a, not on the letter e. See the definitive reference, The Surnames of Ireland by Edward MacLysaght, for correct orthography. The proper pronunciation of the Irish language version is oh-dja, not oh-day. Confusion about spelling is caused by the existence of a very similar name, Ó Déadaigh (Deady in English, pronounced day-dee) where the síneadh fada lies on the letter e (refer to MacLysaght again for confirmation).

This article should not be headlined by such an archaic spelling of the term. The Ó form (accented) is the one used in modern Ireland — when speaking Irish. The Ua form is obsolete.

The article should be moved to the English language form of the name. In Ireland, the English form O'Dea (unaccented) is the usage that predominates overwhelmingly — Ireland is mainly an English-speaking country — and it is that form which should be the title of the page in this English language encyclopaedia. I am both an O'Dea and an Irish language speaker, so I can pronounce with some authority on this matter. In any case, I cite MacLysaght, above, as my objective justification.

I propose to move the page to Clan O'Dea instead of the misspelt and archaic form, Clan Ua Déaghaidh. odea (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Clan Ua Déaghaidh → O'Dea — The Irish surname O'Dea is currently used in Ireland. The traditional Irish language variant Ua Deághaidh is rarely used. See my points about this in the article talk page. I tried to move it but was prevented from doing so by an existing redirect page called O'Dea. I announced my intention to move the page in September 2009 and contacted the original author of the page. No objection has been forthcoming. --odea (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, DinDraithou performed a cut-and-paste move to O'Dea; I went ahead and repaired it, and merged the page histories before I saw there was a move request open. It can easily be moved back if there is any objection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I haven't been around WP long enough and don't know how to merge page histories. DinDraithou (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone fix the edit history associated with this article, please? Old edits are lost because of an improperly performed move. The history shows only 52 edits at time of writing. odea (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was done "improperly", and there is nothing to find in the "lost" history anyway. If you really don't like it then we can go back to how things were and you can try something else yourself. The move was done for no other reason than to make you happy. You might have tried a move to O'Dea clan or O'Dea family. DinDraithou (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need for you to adopt that hostile and dismissive tone. You were not obliged to perform the move if you didn't wish to, and you did move it in an improper manner where two mistakes occurred: 1. Wikipedia-recommended procedure was violated and, 2. the edit history was lost until Cúchullain recovered it.

I could have moved it that way myself using the copy-and-paste approach deprecated by Wikipedia policy, but I knew that wasn't recommended. I was unable to move it in the recommended way for the reason I described originally, and I requested help. That is a reasonable thing to do. It is not very mature to try to deflect attention from your two mistakes by being snotty and saying we can go back to how things were before. I could have tried a move to the new names you suggest but those were not the article names I chose.

Moving articles is a basic Wikipedia function and when a difficulty arises it is advisable to ask for help, just as it is desirable to want the article edit history preserved. Losing edit history is another action deprecated by Wikipedia, and regarded seriously, not to be shrugged off, calling it merely trivial "lost" history, as you do. odea (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves are very undesirable, since they destroy page history and therefore affect the attribution needed for copyright reasons (See WP:CUT and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Fortunately they can be fixed, though it can require admin functions. In this case I completed a merge of the Clan Ua Déaghaidh and O'Dea page histories; nothing should be lost. O'Dea just didn't have much history.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount it happens (I see it all the time) more options should be available to non-admins. Although I don't see how it's any different from a merge-redirect. Seems to conflict with WP:OWN a bit too. DinDraithou (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Day[edit]

Isn't this an alternate spelling? If not, we must say so; if so, we should say so, and include - for example - Dorothy Day. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Day added. --odea (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move concluded so movereq tag removed.[edit]

I removed the movereq tag from this page as the move has now taken place. odea (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article[edit]

To add to this article: what "Deághaidh" means. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]