User:Phoe/Archive/February 2007

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

Please review[edit]

Succession boxes[edit]

  • I made a few very minor changes to *clarify* who a person was. When a person is preceded and succeeded by the same person, who they are should be made clear not obsfucated. The "discussion" is just a series of completely unsupported opinions and "that's the way we've always done it." That isn't a scholarly discussion of the issue. When a person has never used a title, we shouldn't either.Wjhonson 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But do you have any actual evidence that they are supported? I think the way we're supposed to work is by citing sources, not running around trying to force our views down peoples throats. The discussion so far has been about "standard" practive or "tradition". What does any of that have to do with wikipedia? We are not here to support what one or two editors want to force to occur. We are supposed to be using sources to make these changes. What sources support calling someone from the 16th century "The Lord" anything, instead of what he actually called himself? Wjhonson 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loch[edit]

  • No, they're not correct. David Beamish shows "Drylaw" as part of the TD, and the London Gazette for 19th July 1895 confirms it: THE Queen has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom unto the Right Honourable Sir Henry Brougham Loch, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Loch, of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian. Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I've noticed a fair few of these have been tagged for lacking info as to what the HS is. There is a link to HS but you have to go right to the bottom for the infobox to find it. I started to put a link at the top but perhaps before I do too many we ought to makeup our mind as to wether this is the best way. Alci12 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine. Obviously we needed to either include text in each article or a link. I'd always rather agree on these things than have to undo! Btw noting your Warrant of Precedence addition are you aware of [1] which can be some help in this area. Alci12 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The text in the example (West Sussex) you gave seemed generic enough for all entries Alci12 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Ponsonby[edit]

  • No problem; it's not. The LG for 8th March 1806 says: The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable William Brabazon Ponsonby, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style, and Title of Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly, in the County of Cork. I'll break the news. Proteus (Talk) 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Oh dear, it's Stefan back again. Always good for a laugh, though. This business of pretending you're a peer by editing Wikipedia to say you are is almost becoming ridiculous enough to warrant its own article. Proteus (Talk) 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can think of several article titles, not all of them kind! Alci12 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm seriously trying to contain my laughter here, so I thought I'd share: have a look at the exchange on my talk page. Having been instructed to be credulous, I obliged, and asked for a citation from the LG showing this peerage. I've been provided with one, but unfortunately it's from (the real domain name is obviously a address), and if you go to that domain without the page title, it only seems to contain the page I've been provided with and the associated image files. But it gets better: do a whois on it and you discover that it was registered today and that the registrant was (you really couldn't make this up) one Stefan Roberts. Someone is seriously dedicated to this hoax. Proteus (Talk) 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Heading of articles[edit]

  • I ask you slightly playfully... but if you strip a name of its, lets say, decorations, as you did with Henry Jerome de Salis (previously Rev. Dr. ), how in the future is one to start a page for someone with exactly the same name? I mean, logicaly perhaps he should have been stripped of all during life given names and left , if lucky, merely as SALIS!?xx Rodolph 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

High Sherrif of Monaghan[edit]

A tag has been placed on High Sheriff of Monaghan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Patricknoddy 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This is not a joke. - Patricknoddy 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: High Shrievalties[edit]

  • Hiya. It wasn't my intention to leave out the old Irish ones, but I suppose there's no harm in doing so as the template currently has old English High Shrievalties too. Go ahead! Thanks Craigy (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron Rugby[edit]

  • Please check my further edit. I was unaware that the exact wording was part of the title, so I previously "fixed" the wordong as part of correcting teh link. My new edit preserves your exact wording while still linking to the town. Thanks. -Arch dude 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vice-Chancellors of the University of Nottingham[edit]

  • Hi, I notice that back in October you changed all of the succession boxes on the Vice Chancellors of the University of Nottingham to one that indicates that it's an honorary position. Vice-chancellor is not an Honorary position in England. I have changed them to use s-aca to reflect this (although a good case could be made for saying it's a leadership role rather than an academic one, it is at least leadership in academia. Thanks, Jamse 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Baird, 1st Baronet[edit]

  • Many Thanks for pointing this out. I'm pretty sure that the convention has changed since I last looked at it (probably a couple of years ago) but it will certainly stop me doing it again! Best Wishes Saga City 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Winton[edit]

  • Hello, Why have you reverted my changes to the Lords Seton and Earls of Winton, under the section Earl of Winton?

The current section is either missing information, or is completely false (I.E. George Lindsay as Lord Seton??).

  • My updates are drawn from sources that I hold original copies of: The History of the House of Seytoun to the year 1559 with Continuation to thet Year 1667 by Alexander Viscount Kingston (1829 re-print by te Maitland Club); An Old Family the Seton's in Scotland and America by Archbishop Robert Seton (1899); Memoir of Chancellor Seton by George Seton Esq Rep of Cariston (1882); The Peerage Claim of the Earl of Eglinton to the Winton Honours (1859), etc...
  • I am myself a male-line Rep Seton of the House of Meldrum, and the owner and author of the official Seton family website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kseton (talkcontribs) 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Robert Vernon, 1st Baron Lyveden[edit]

  • Hello. I believe you were a bit hasty in moving Robert Vernon Smith, 1st Baron Lyveden, to Robert Smith, 1st Baron Lyveden. He was known as Robert Vernon Smith before 1859 (although only Smith was his legal surname while Vernon was a Christian Name, however, he was never to my best knowledge known simply as Robert Smith). In 1859 he was ennobled as Baron Lyveden and also assumed the surname of Vernon in lieu of Smith. The correct move in my opinion should therefore have been to Robert Vernon, 1st Baron Lyveden. I tried to move it to this name but that was impossible as a re-direct page of this name already exists. I'm sure you're more familiar than me with requesting pages to be moved by administrators, so perhaps you can take care of this. If you don't agree with me leave a message on my talk page. Regards, Tryde 08:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Several Baronets[edit]

  • Hello Phoe. I see that you are removing the Category ' Baronets etc' from a number of articles. I quite understand why you take the view that these articles are primarily about the Baronetcies, but the articles are entitled ' XYZ Baronets' and include lists of Baronets, and it does seem rather odd therefore that they should not be included in the category 'Baronets'. Is there a flaw in my logic ?Ordyg 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note . As to Bridgeman who died , according to his article in Nov/Dec 1740: Ogle did sail for the West Indies in August 1740 so it would seem highly likely that he is the Admiral with whom Bridgman sailed. Regards

Barons and Baronettes[edit]

  • I was under the impression that both Barons and Baronettes do not automatically satify notablility due to WP:ROYAL. Can you please confirm this. regards--Vintagekits 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly, or Baron Ponsonby[edit]

Re: Baron Ponsonby[edit]

  • OK, i've reverted to the April 2006 version. I'm still getting the hang of being an admin (obviously—it's been a day since I became one). –Llama man 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates and succession boxes[edit]

  • Is there a policy for this? The thing is I have deliberately avoided adding dates to succession boxes for peerages as I really can't see the point in doing this. Adding dates makes it seem like a peerage is an office held for a certain period. Adding dates for political or other offices is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think this is necessary in regard to peerages or other titles. Regards, Tryde 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Mackenzie-Stuart[edit]

  • Yes, but like English High Court Judges and above he lost the post-nominal on being appointed a Lord of Session ("Alexander Mackenzie Stuart, Esq., QC" -> "The Hon. Lord Mackenzie Stuart"). Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that you'll doubt Proteus but [2] is the citation Alci12 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Non-peers are not entitled to the postnominals "PC", and any use to the contrary for members of the UK and NI councils (but not Canadian) is incorrect. As members of both are entitled to be styled "The Right Honourable", any use of the postnominals "PC" is superfluous. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow the use of honorific prefixes, which is the cause of this predicament. However, adding factual inaccuracies is surely not the way to fix the problem. --Ibagli (Talk) 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)