Talk:George Eyston

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

WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Please do not rename this page again without first:

  • Some passing familiarity with the subject.
  • Reading the relevant naming convention. Please note the following:
    • "The name that is most generally recognisable"
    • "The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name"

Although "George Eyston" is a good wikilink text and exists as a redirect, the subject of this article in period was almost universally referred to as "Captain Eyston". For this reason, the canonical page name includes his rank. Group Captain John Cobb was rarely addressed by his rank, Captain Eyston was.

The page George E.T. Eyston is a complete misnomer and should simply not exist. The initials were never used in period, unless with his full name and rank.

If you still insist on renaming this page (there are editors who prioritise the slavish following of simplistic rules over actual content), please follow Wikipedia good editing practice of discussing it on Talk: first, and also ensuring that you don't break any redirects afterwards.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if this article is to be named Captain George E.T. Eyston, then a reasonable search term would be that name, George E.T. Eyston, omitting the rank. Redirects are cheap, and the fact that the article actually uses the initials as well as the first and last names means that someone, somewhere, might search for those initials without the rank, which would return the redirect, which goes directly here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree slightly, simply because the initials are so unimportant. If anyone wanted to rename the whole article "Captain Eyston" I'd support that. That was the single most common mode of address for the chap. We already have George Eyston, because that's where the redlinks pointed. What I disagree with is the nonsensical result of dropping the rank, yet keeping the initials. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus, then, on simple George Eyston, with the others all becoming redirects? I'd suggest that the existing redir at that name be deleted, so that this version can be moved there intact with this talk page discussion explicating our collective reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite obviously we do not have any consensus and it is disingenuous of you to act as if we do! "Captain Eyston" is not the same as "George Eyston". Your original page-move, before I'd even added the content, claimed some wikipedia naming convention that the page was supposedly in breach of, yet you've still failed to cite it.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked whether we had consensus, based on your statement, "already have George Eyston, because that's where the redlinks pointed. What I disagree with is the nonsensical result of dropping the rank, yet keeping the initials." There is no reason to get uncivil. As to the convention, it's in the lead of the section you cite above: "general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably: Do not have additional qualifiers (such as 'King', 'Saint', 'Dr.'..." Dr. M.L. King, Jr. is normally referred to as "Dr. King"; but the article is simply Martin Luther King, Jr., with no honorific attached. I will cheerfully concede that in Captain Eyston's heyday, the use of titles was a bigger deal (from Colonel House to Captain Hastings) than it is in these modern, more egalitarian times. If you really wanted to abandon the presumption of good faith entirely, you could assume that as a Quaker I am prejudiced against honorifics in general; but in fact, I'm trying in good faith to apply the Wikipedia naming conventions as I understand them; I assume you are doing the same. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Martin Luther King" is the most commonly used version of his name, whether he had been granted a doctorate or not. As an sf fan, I doubt you would begrudge E.E. "Doc" Smith his most recognisable mode of address, right down to the quotation marks. It's not about his military rank (convention is indeed that we don't use that in article titles) it's that this is how he was best known in the populist press of the day. Part of my reason for starting this article was that Eyston is a lost name in motor-racing history today; I'd like to recover some of his fame. "Major Sir Henry Segrave" and "Captain Sir Malcolm Campbell" were only rarely addressed by their titles, but Captain Eyston was known as just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly there should be a redir to the pop journalism of Eyston's name! I just felt that the convention I quoted generally should prevail unless there are issues of disambiguation. It's no big deal, we can both agree; and excellent pick of the ol' weevil mechanic as a counter-example, by the way! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Conventions and consensus[edit]

I do apologise, I came across this after moving the page. It was obvious to me that it was unconventionally titled and I changed it. But this talk seems to indicate that I was right to. Two administrators already tried moving it, and User:Ultraexactzz concurred with them. And I agree with this, so make it a consensus of four to one. You are right that 'the name that is most generally recognisable' is an accepted standard, but seemed to have ignored the 'Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation' caveat. Articles simply do not have a rank preceding their name. Articles are at titled at their simplest so that the maximum number of people can find them, and when disambiguation is needed then examples are Mark Anthony (Royal Navy officer), George Johnstone (Royal Navy officer) George E. T. Eyston (captain) or George Eyston (captain) would therefore be possibilities. But King John is at John of England, King Alfred is at Alfred the Great, Admiral Horatio Nelson is at Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson for example. E.E. "Doc" Smith is at E. E. Smith incidentally. Eyston's entry at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is at 'Eyston, George Edward Thomas', and in the sources you provide he is referred to interchangeably as 'Captain George Eyston' and 'George Eyston'. Though not the most reliable test, google searches return 455 results for 'Captain George Eyston', but that rises to some 3,270 for 'George Eyston'. Here and here he is referred to as just George Eyston. Here's an article in the Guardian that calls him simply George Eyston. In short, there are many references to him that do not refer to him as 'Captain George Eyston'. We do not write articles assuming that people are already familiar with him. A good parallel is Biggles's creator, who published under the name Captain W. E. Johns, but his article is at W. E. Johns. As a compromise I suggest titling the article 'George Eyston (captain)', as this would be more in keeping with our conventions. Benea (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if this and this are anything to go by, he published under the name of just 'George Eyston'. He is also in the National Portrait Gallery as 'George Edward Thomas Eyston'. In this article it even goes so far as to say "George (or often, in the protocol of the times, Captain G.E.T) Eyston.". Flicking through sources I can find many references to Captain George Eyston, but these are actually outweighed by the number of references to plain George Eyston. You yourself have admitted that the redlinks on wikipedia pointed to a number of variations on his name, of which none included 'captain'. Currently four now do, all of which have existed since this article was created, and three of them were added by you. In short there is no justification for breaking the existing convention on titles as the assertion that he is most commonly, to the point of exclusively, referred to as 'Captain...Eyston' simply does not hold water. Benea (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you "assume consensus" at 4 in the morning, when you don't even allow the page's original creator time to respond before acting? That's not "consensus", it's a pre-emptive action trying to dress itself up as something else.
Secondly "George E. T. Eyston" is farcical. This page should be deleted, not the eventual destination of the redirects. As noted already (which you don't appear to have read) I personally favour Captain George Eyston and don't see this as contrary to convention, but I'd be perfectly happy with Captain Eyston or George Eyston (assuming redirs for the other). "George E. T. Eyston" though is neither fish nor fowl. It's no common form of address for him, no common wikilink or search term, nor is it particularly close to the convention to use insignificant initials.
I suggest moving this whole page (yet again) to either George Eyston or Captain Eyston (I don't care which, so long as Captain Eyston survives as a redir) and dumping the variants with initials. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's four in the afternoon in Australia, such is the wonderful world of the internet. Four in favour of the move and one against suggests consensus whatever the time is. I did indeed read your arguments quite closely and I know full well what you are in favour of. I only chose George E. T. Eyston as it omitted the preceding 'captain'. The 'E. T.' bit is of no real concern to me, it would help disambiguation, but since there is no other George Eyston, that isn't a problem. George Eyston is the best term to use, and as you say you don't mind which, I'll sort this out, keeping the others as redirects. Benea (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the article to George Eyston, which required admin assistance. I am not endorsing any one name and will happily move the page again should consensus change. TomTheHand (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)




  • GB 260804  Improvements in and connected with the method of constructing impellers for rotary pump machines
  • GB 375886  Improvements in and connected with rotary pump and like machines
  • GB 348524  Improvements in or relating to rotary pumps and blowers

What I know of as yet. I suspect there are other GB patents. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article seem to fail in mentioning he was from a aristocratic family.[edit]

So...Yeah... (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Eyston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)