Talk:James Douglas

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Knighthoods in disambigs[edit]

And other titles, obviosly; I understand the usual Wiki rule about direct-dabbing links, especially on disambiguation pages; but there's at least two Sir James Douglases on this page; James Douglas (governor) and Sir James Douglas preceding him in the list; it's a matter of luck as to how some articles get their titles, not that I'm saying "my" JD over osmebody else's JD is what I'm on about here; but rather isn't it better - or wouldn't it be better- if on people lists like this one that dablinks be used in the case of knighthoods and other similar titles; not just that they earned them, but that people coming to look for Sir James Douglas, while sure "governor" helps ott in the link....I dunno, just doesn't seem right not ti let these guys wear their titles in the foyer, so to speak; either that or there's Sir James Douglas (disambiguation) to think about, if there's more than those two (I don't have time to look right now, and this is being typed half-blind as I misplaced/lost my glasses earlier today so don't want to try and read pages; typing's different); any number of nobility disambiguation pages for "Duke of This" and "Duke of That" have the advantage of those long, deliberately unique legal/dynastic names and 3rd barnoet/4th duke appendages and all that, which are in their article titles; in this case IMO Sir James Douglas (governor) might have been a better way to go; i.e. if knighthoods are to be or can be included in titles, why syould they be omitted? Not a pressing issue just curious as to if there's any override on the direct-cab thing for certain kinds of things.....Skookum1 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. The policy states that biographical articles on subjects with honorific prefixes such as "Sir" or "Dame" should be renamed sans honorific to conform with WP style, and the honorific attributed in the inline text. That sort of move would be noncontroversial, and you should be able to go ahead and do it. Or I will. Regardless, nobody's article should have "Sir" in it, not even the venerable Father of British Columbia. fishy 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one thing that should be changed, in the policy. Sir James Douglas the hero of the wars of Scottish Independence was the first James in history to be so called. Furthermore he is commonly known as Sir James in all relevant contemporary sources such as John of Fordun, Froissart etc. The premise should be for the inclusion of martial knighthoods rather than honorary ones. Brendandh 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Douglas / Douglass?[edit]

I've made a dab page for James Douglass and wonder whether it should be combined with this one. I'm putting a link to that page on this one. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]