|WikiProject British Royalty||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Northern Ireland||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|A fact from Baron Carrickfergus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Please merge. Baron Carrickfergus is the official term, without "of".
I can see where people are coming from but I don't think a merge is the best course of action. The reason I say that is because the current page here is compleatly unsourced whereas the other one (which I created) is. I think that maybe the best course of action is maybe blank this page and move the contents of the other page to this one. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also might I request that no action be taken until the wedding is over as I for one like many will be watching it and you won't get as wide a view from others if you do anything before or during it. I would think it would be best if we wait until after 1.30PM BST before doing anything. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Yours is far better written.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have tagged this article for deletion, so a proper move of the other one can be performed. I'm not clear why you (C of E) think making the move now would affect page views. One article will be a redirect to the other, so people will be able to find it regardless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep this one, redirect the other
Pretty simple really. The title is Baron Carrickfergus not Baron of Carrickfergus. From the Queen's Official Website http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx This is the single, only correct course of action. The text from the two should be merged, but what the correct title is pretty unambiguous. Jaxsonjo (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is the way to go. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 09:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing to be saved from the text here, therefore it's easiest to delete this one and move the other into the space provided. Or is that what you're suggesting? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the fate of the page(s) if the picture is retained anywhere the caption should be reconsidered. "second Baron Carrickfergus" in British usage normally indicates the inheritor of the title from a first Baron which is not the case.
It might be best to eliminate the "second" entirely in a caption. But if the intent was to refer to this being the second creation of the barony the (pedantically) correct means would be "Baron Carrickfergus of the second creation".
- I think the picture should be retained especially since I've included it in a DYK entry for this page. But you do have a point it's a recreation not an inheritance so I suppose just Baron Carrickfergus or 1st Baron Carrickfergus should be used as we do have a history of the previous holder. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article to be more about a list of the the married royal couple's new appointed titles instead of about Baron Carrickfergus alone. Why even mention Kate? see Duke of Windsor or Duke of York for examples—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)