This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please provide a citation that the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was ever referred to simply as "Lord" whatever, without the reference additionally specifying his proper first name. Wjhonson 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Citations are irrelevant. It's a matter of Wikipedia convention, not contemporary practice. Proteus(Talk) 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidently convention as cited by you. Could you post the exact quote from the list of *conventions* that illustrates your point? I read the manual of style and didn't quite see where people should be referred to by their titles without regard to their given names. Thanks. Wjhonson 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the one *almost similar* example says the exact opposite of what you're trying to force down everyone's throat. That example has a Baronet link but a proper name display. Which is the opposite of having a fully-qualified-name link with a title-only display which is what you're trying to push. Maybe you could actually "quote" the exact section that you think supports your opinion. Wjhonson 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The bit that says how peers should be referred to. ("The 7th Marquess of Salisbury" or "Lord Salisbury", but definitely no "Robert, Lord Salisbury", "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury" or what not.) And the peerage succession boxes aren't even slightly similar, let alone "almost similar". (And there won't be an exact quote — until now the convention has been universally applied by common practice. We don't generally write down things that everyone does, because it'd take years. Just look at any article at all on a British person with succession boxes (William Ewart Gladstone, say; he has a lot), and you'll see what I mean.) Proteus(Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see where that would be confusing, but that section is speaking about references *within* the article of that peer. Saying that you should, after the peer has been introduced already, refer futher to them simply as "Earl Chester" for example, and not over and over again as "Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester". Obviously referring over and over in a article to the full name plus title of a person would be redundant. However in the succession boxes, you are introducing brand new players never before referenced in many cases, in *that* article. To simply say, in a Royal Treasurer box, preceded by "Lord Howard" and succeeded by "Lord Howard" is confusing and misleading, when the persons are two different Lord Howards. Simply adding the first name does not seem in any way to detract from the articles and it does enhance them by removing the confusing nature. Wjhonson 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)