Talk:Earl of Warwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pronunciation[edit]

Not being a resident of the UK, I am uncertain how Warwick is pronounced. It seems I have heard it without the second W enunciated, something like: "War-rick", rather than "War-wick". If this is true, would someone be so kind as to indicate this in the article? --Blainster 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Proteus (Talk) 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a family name. Properly, there is a whisper of an H sound as in Whar-rick. Americans would be likely to say Wore-ick. JoKing 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

I've moved the detail on the Barons Rich and Brooke to their own pages; this one was too cluttered, and anyway and it seems reasonable to have separate pages for different institutions. I hope that's OK with everyone. Swanny18 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I’ve added some detail about the first creation; A single paragraph seems a bit sparse considering it lasted longer than all the others put together, and contained, arguably, the most notable characters. Swanny18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Number of creations[edit]

My understanding was that Lord Ambrose Dudley was given a new creation of the title, not restored to his father's title. john k (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

The layout of this page was changed, despite ongoing discussions here and here.
Instead of re-arranging this page, so its unlike any other peerage page we have, and trying to merge all the detail about the Rich and Brooke titles onto it, how about leaving the layout here alone, leaving the Rich and Brook pages alone, and trimming the Rich/Brook detail here down to a couple of main article links (like at Duke of Bedford, the example given on the peerage project page. Hmm? Swanny18 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I restored to my previous version. Do you know how much material you removed? Tryde (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that the fairly radical change of layout I reverted was foisted on the article by you without any discussion or agreement; and that the material I removed was added by you from the Rich and Brooke pages when you blanked them, also without any discussion or agreement.
And as the debate about that is still on going I know that it was inappropriate for you to make these unilateral edits in order to shift the goalposts.
What else do I need to know? Swanny18 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I just happened on this discussion. Can we keep it centralized at WT:PEER please, it's getting hard to follow! Cheers. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The matter has been discussed at length (here, and here) and there was no outside support for this action. It was found by the majority of opinion to be contrary to WP:PEERAGE guidelines, which rule that “Titles should only share articles when one is totally connected to the other; (otherwise) there should be separate articles”. As the Rich and Brooke baronies were both separate titles for many years prior to their promotion to the Earldom of Warwick these articles should be separate.
I have restored their pages accordingly. Swanny18 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Swanny18, you have misunderstood the guidelines. The barony of Rich and earldom of Warwick are connected to each other, no one was ever Earl of Warwick without being Baron Rich. At least we can include the material on the baronies in this article and then have separate articles for the baronies. Is this a good compromise? Tryde (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Where to start?
The page now reads the same as it did after you your out-of-process mergers and change of layout; how is that a compromise?
In the discussion at WT:PEER you were told by five different people that your merging of the subsidiary title pages was contrary to the guidelines on the subject. Also, when you asked for comments on the new layout you got no support; why is a compromise even necessary? You’ve shown no interest in doing so.
To be clear, reverting my correction, which followed on from the consensus there is well into the area of disruptive editing. I have removed the duplicated material, again, and I’ve restored the original layout, per the consensus established at WT:PEER. If you want to make changes here I suggest you make a proposal on this page and wait until you get any support for it. If you continue to push your agenda on this against the consensus it will be treated as vandalism. Swanny18 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: If you want to add references for the Rich and Brooke titles, I suggest you put them in the relevant articles, not game the system by putting them here. Swanny18 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Public house[edit]

Sorry to raise questions over trivia, which some editors may think does not warrant any inclusion in this article at all. But which Earl would the Welling pub be named after? The sign here seems to show Ambrose Dudley - probably because this image was readily available to the sign-makers. Most local sources describe the pub as originally an old coaching inn (although not on the present site). So could it be Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick? But this would be a very old pub-name origin indeed. It seems the pub was used by Dickens, as the model for "The Halfway House" in his 1861 Great Expectations. Of course, if there are many other pubs called "The Earl of Warwick", then I guess any particular one of them does not really deserve a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)