User talk:Tryde/Archive 7

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

Speedy deletion of "Myrton Baronets"

Nuvola apps important.svg

A page you created, Myrton Baronets, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Herschel Baronets

Tryde, I just wanted to let you know that I fixed a few of your edits to the Herschel baronetcy page, in part b/c one of your changes was incorrect (Slough was in the county of Buckinghamshire, not Buckingham, which is a town), in part b/c one of the links you changed is not the actual name of the article in question (the article about John Herschel is titled "John Herschel", not "Sir John Herschel, 1st Baronet", so in fact you were creating an unnecessary layer of referral), and in part b/c there is no need to break up the first sentence and start a new one with "It was". Unless there is an absolute need for using it, "It was" is a redundant and unnecessary way to start a sentence, and the sentence was perfectly comprehensible as written. I had seen you doing this to some other baronetcy pages and had no problems with your changes (except "It was", but that's a minor thing), but the changes here were both incorrect and inaccurate, so I fixed. Pilch62 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. County of Buckingham is a more formal style for Buckinghamshire, it doesn't refer to the town of Buckingham. This style is always used in peerage and baronet creations. The territorial designation for the Herschel baronetcy isn't actually mentioned when it was gazetted (see here) but you can look at the other td's used. And yes, I probably was "creating an unnecessary layer of referral". I always use the more formal style of Sir So and so, X Baronet, in baronetcy articles. It's just a whim of mine, I don't really have a good explanation for it! As for the style "It was created": I have created and edited A LOT of baronet and peerage articles and have always used this style. Both styles can of course be used. Regards, Tryde (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of British PMs

I have objected to your edit of the page List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, which removed the PMs' constituencies and the given names of peer PMs. The nature of my objection is available here. My apologies - the edit is clearly made in good faith, but I disagree with it nonetheless. BartBassist (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Baronetcies

Please note that people do not stop being baronets or knights bachelor when they are ennobled. The appropriate categories should be left in their articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. Of course they don't stop being baronets or knights when they are granted peerages. The thing is, there are hundreds and hundreds of peers that were also baronets (for example the Dukes of Northumberland and Westminster). If they were all to be categorised as baronets, this category would be useless. The baronet categories should only include people who held a baronetcy as their highest title. This is what readers expect to find in the category. Tryde (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If somebody has been knighted, created a baronet and then ennobled, all three categories should appear. We don't delete the category for GCBs, for example, because somebody has been ennobled. Why should we delete baronets and knights bachelor? That makes no sense. The category shouldn't appear for those peers who inherit baronetcies, but it should for those who received them before ennoblement. Would you point me in the direction of the discussion where the deletion was decided - I've never seen it. It has been decided (correctly) that if someone is promoted within an Order of Knighthood or within the peerage then only the highest level should appear (which is maybe what you mean?), but this is a different case entirely. Knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages are entirely separate things and should be treated as entirely separate things. One is not strictly a promotion from another, although it is true that they usually given in order. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I said that this has been discussed, not that there was any agreement, although I assume the policy has been to not include peers who also held baronetcies. I agree that knighthoods should be included. It is of course very common for peers to also be awarded knighthoods, Lord Carrington has for instance been made both a KG and GCMG. However, it is unheard of for peers to also be granted baronetcies. A baronetcy is not a peerage but is a junior title to that of any peerage, so awarding one to a peer would be pretty pointless and almost a slight. We do not categorise dukes who are also earls as earls and I see no reason why we should categorise any peers that are also baronets as baronets. What I'm trying to say is that although a peerage and a baronetcy are two separate things, we should view a baronetcy as a junior title to a barony just like we view a barony as a junior title to a viscountcy. I also don't see the logic in not including peers that inherited baronetcies but only those who were granted them. We should perhaps have a new category "Recipients of baronetcies". Tryde (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
An individual who was awarded a baronetcy or inherited one before being ennobled was actually known as a baronet before he was known as a peer. You yourself have added this to the lead in several instances, so I should have thought the logic is quite clear. A baronetcy inherited by a peer along with his peerage is indeed pretty irrelevant, as he's never known as Sir xxxx xxxx Bt and most people will be unaware that he held the baronetcy, so the categorisation is unnecessary. But not categorising those who were knighted or created baronets before being ennobled is as illogical as not categorising recipients of one of the orders of knighthood because they were also peers and their peerage outranked their other honours. Those who were actually awarded honours (as distinct from those who merely inherited them as a companion to a higher title) should be appropriately categorised or the categorisation becomes unnecessarily selective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Using your logic Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Baron Willingdon, for instance, should be categorised as a baron, viscount, earl and marquess, as he was known under these titles at different times of his life. I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Tryde (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Necrothesp has a good point. You have made a similar deletion to the categories in Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney, by deleting his category as a Viscount in the Peerage of Ireland. Why? He was created Viscount Castlemain in 1718 on his own merit (actually he purchased it but nevermind!) which title he bore until 1731 when he was "promoted" to Earl Tylney. Your somewhat destructive edit has thus removed the Castlemain viscountcy entirely from the listing in the category Viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland. You should consider the purpose of the categories - as a source of reference, i.e. for someone who wants a list of all Irish viscountcies. Would the inclusion of Castlemain assist that reader or not? The answer is surely yes. Your edit has thus been reverted on this point.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Page titles

It looks like you have been trying to rename Baron Thring to Henry Thring, 1st Baron Thring by redirecting the first name to the second one. This does not work, because the second name is already a redirect to the first one. You need to move the article, including all its history, to the desired new title. You should be able to do this by using the "move" tool which (if you use the standard layout) you can find on the toolbar near the upper right corner of the page, next to the search box. If that doesn't work, then you can leave a request for help at WP:RM. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See ANI

I've raised the issue about User:Phoebus de Lusignan, although I probably would not have if I'd realised the editor had been replying to some people on their talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits

At what purpose are you reverting my edits? What's so bad about adding all the titles? Adding information isn't vandalism. What do you call to what you're doing? How can you have the nerve of blocking people for a totally arbitrary reason when they're doing some work? Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I don't care the titles appear lost among the pages of the titles, they don't appear on their holders' pages, that's why I added them in the first place. Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Should they be missing?... Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Information.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Earl of Shaftesbury, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Earl of Shaftesbury, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Again, please stop your disruptive editing. Cindamuse (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

May you explain what content or which templates I have removed from Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Simply refer to the changes to the article that you have made just today for removed content. While I applaud you for providing an edit summary on your latest revisions, the action and statements offered indicate that the changes have been made according to personal opinion rather than MOS or through consensus. Accordingly, your changes have been reverted. If you wish to remove the work of others through wide revisions such as these, please present your suggestions and proposal on the talk page, providing an opportunity for other editors to weigh in. Just because a particular style of presentation existed for eight years does not justify the revisions of which you have made. An editor has made a good faith effort to improve the article. You assumed bad faith, evident through your use of the terms "hideous" and "nonsensical". I personally don't find the box of title holders particularly appealing, but this is only my opinion. Unless changes made are a violation of MOS, policy, or guidelines, I don't assert my opinions into an article, even if I prefer a different direction. If I had desires to revert, I would bring this up on the talk page. Sweeping changes of which you have made need to go through consensus. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the third sentence: "In 1661, Anthony Ashley-Cooper had already succeeded as 2nd Baronet of Rockbourne and created Baron Ashley of Wimborne St Giles". This sentence is nonsensical, gramatically incorrect and gives the wrong information. Ashley-Cooper had succeeded his father as second Baronet in 1631 and was created a baron in 1661. The sentence as it now stands does not give the date he succeeded his father and states that he had been created a baron before 1661. I tried to correct this by changing the sentence into the following: "He had already in 1631 succeeded his father as second Baronet of Rockbourne and been created Baron Ashley, of Wimborne St Giles in the County of Dorset, in 1661..." The sentence now informs the reader when he inherited the baronetcy and when he was created a baron. I did not remove content from the article, I reformulated a sentence to give the correct information. As for the table added by an anonymous IP, I use the term "hideous", you use the term "not particularly appealing". We can agree that it doesn't look very good. This kind of table for holders of titles has never been used in any articles on peerages or baronetcies, and I can't see why we whould change this. I don't see why this needs to be discussed at the talk page. The anonymous IP also removed the first holder of the Cooper Baronetcy, Sir John Cooper, 1st Baronet, without giving any explanation for doing so. It has always been the style used to include holders of baronetcies and other junior titles in peerage articles, see for instance Earl of Kimberley. What you did with your latest edit was removing this information from the article. Tryde (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I must apologize, as I now realize that your latest revision provided some clarity in the lede. I think there was some misunderstanding between what I "thought I read" and what you were presenting. I knew that he succeeded as baronet in 1628 and didn't see it in the copy. I thought it had been there previously and removed in your edit. I hadn't caught the "nonsensical" statement before and agree with you that it needs to be reworked. As far as the table, I don't know that your opinion (that I share) is in the majority. This is why I suggest consensus on the talk page. I also agree that the Cooper Baronetcy should be re-added to the prose. I am proposing a rewrite of the lede and will continue this conversation from here to the article talk page. Cindamuse (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pembroke categorisation

Why did you introduce the category Category:Earls in the Peerage of England? The existing Category:Earls of Pembroke (1138) already reports to that super-category. This just introduces a redundancy. You should consider deleting the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Tryde (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've looked into the comments on that page. There is no concensus on the page. If anything, the balance is swinging towards "don't introduce redundancies". I repeat, you should consider deleting the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain this edit

You remove information in this edit. Why? My view is that doing so without an edit summary providing a valid reason is vandalism. Please consider this a warning against such actions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the style always used when a person is the holder of a peerage - only his highest title is used. It is very common for a peer to hold multiple titles but the subsidiary ones are never listed in the introduction. Tryde (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that documented anywhere, or OR?. I think my main issue with your edit is that you removed information which is not in the rest of the article. (Albeit not much info - specifically that he was the 7th this and 5th that ... you lost the numbers). I don't feel much support can be given to throwing away information in this way. Then there's the point that what titles this individual had, and then what happened to the titles after his death, is at the core of the article. In such circumstances, I can see some arguments for including the titles in the lede. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage:
Articles on peers should start with the peer's full name and highest title(s) in bold, followed by linked post-nominal letters, separated from the name and each other by commas, and then the dates of birth and death in brackets as usual. For example, the article on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, should start:
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (c. 1 May 176914 September 1852) was...
As the code shows, each set of post-nominal letters links to the appropriate article:
'''Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington''', [[Order of the Garter|KG]], [[Order of the Bath|GCB]], [[Royal Guelphic Order|GCH]], [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|PC]], [[Royal Society|FRS]] ([[circa|c.]] [[1 May]] [[1769]] – [[14 September]] [[1852]]) was...
If a peer bore courtesy titles before succeeding, these should be mentioned at the beginning, after the dates of birth and death. For example, the article on a fictional peer might begin:
John Henry William Smith, 6th Marquess of Somewhere, KG, PC (born 22nd March 1932), styled Viscount Anywhere until 1954 and Earl of Elsewhere between 1954 and 1983, is...
I think the important thing is an article about a person is what the person did to achieve notability. That he or she held a title should be mentioned but is of secondary importance. The article on Lord Anglesey should thus begin: Richard Annesley, 6th Earl of Anglesey (1694-1761), known as The Lord Altham between 1727 and 1737, was ..." I suggest that some good succession boxes are added at the bottom of the article to clarify the succession. There should of course be information in the introduction about the controversy over his peerages. Tryde (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe your reasoning is in error here. To many users of Wikipedia it is indeed the title which is of interest, not the career, for example to those many researching genealogy. I agree this aspect is of secondary importance, but it is of importance nonetheless, and needs to be fully treated, if so desired. An article should not be restricted to aspects which are of interest to you alone, but surely should contain as many aspects as might be of interest to your readers from all disciplines with all interests. I also find your wording imprecise, e.g. in your example above you state "Richard Annesley, 6th Earl of Anglesey (1694-1761), known as The Lord Altham between 1727 and 1737. Firstly, the initial "The" is not part of an official title, but merely a form of address, for example on an envelope or for verbal introduction. You also write "known as", which is not accurate. Was his title a courtesy title, i.e. a lesser title of his father, in which case "styled as" would be more correct, or was the title actually held by him in his own right before he received a further creation, in which case he "was Lord X" not "was known as Lord X". I agree with tagishsimon above, and would ask you to desist from deleting such titles from articles, unless you move them to another suitable place within the article. To delete such information must be considered vandalism.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Categories

Your addition of Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom to Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis was reverted with the explanation "Reverted good faith edits by Tryde; No need for this. sub cat:Earls Alexander of Tunis is already there." Similarly, your addition of the same category to Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex was reverted as a redundancy. However, you've continued to reinsert the category two more times at the article on Alexander (reverted both times by me with yet two more indications to you that the category is superfluous) and still we see you adding it to Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire. Please stop. As User:Kirrages noted, it is totally unnecessary to place the category into an article about an earl whose earldom already has its own category, as the latter already exists within the former. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Recent Reverts

FYI - Some of your recent reverts prompted me to make a suggestion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Propose_Adding_Information_About_Years_Title_Held. Adam sk (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney

I have started a talk page for this article, which I have started by questioning some of your latest edits. I will be adding some new data to this article presently, particularly under political career, Tylney family, patronage of Old Nollekens etc. Nomenclature is problematic, and requires, I hope, consensus. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

October 2010

Information.svg Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to James Dundas White. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Your recent move was not discussed and was contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions. We would need evidence that he was overwhelmingly known as J.D. White (even to his family and friends?) to go for that. PatGallacher (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this information to me. I have only been a Wikipedia editor since 2005 so this will be very helpful to me... I found some sources that he was known as J. D. White, such as this one (which initially refers to him by his full name). Hardly conclusive evidence so perhaps it's best to have him under his full name for the moment. I'm not going to argue over the article title of a minor Scottish MP. Tryde (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Horace Brooks Marshall, 1st Baron Marshall

You moved this article to Horace Marshall, 1st Baron Marshall of Chipstead. I'm not sure where you got this from, but according to both Who Was Who and The Times his title was Baron Marshall, of Chipstead, and not Baron Marshall of Chipstead. Also according to The Times he was known as Horace Brooks Marshall and not Horace Marshall. I have moved the article back to its original title. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The title was gazetted as Baron Marshall of Chipstead, of Chipstead in the County of Surrey. I think this is the most authoritative source we can get. Thepeerage.com also refers to him under this title, with a reference to The New Extinct Peerage 1884-1971. Cracroft's Peerage also refers to the title as Baron Marshall of Chipstead. Hansard also uses the title Baron Marshall of Chipstead, so this is how he would have been known in the House of Lords. I think his title may have been abbreviated in newspaper articles. In his obituary in the Evening Standard he is referred to as both Lord Marshall and Lord Marshall of Chipstead. Some other sources that refer to him as Lord Marshall of Chipstead: [1], [2], [3], [4]. You may well be correct about the Brooks part of his name. With the sources I have presented here I suggest we move the article to Horace Brooks Marshall, 1st Baron Marshall of Chipstead. Tryde (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Very well. I agree that the London Gazette is the most authoritative source. It is, however, unusual for Who Was Who to get it wrong, since Who's Who articles are usually written by the individual themselves. This suggests that Marshall did think of himself simply as "Lord Marshall" and didn't use the geographical part of his title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is an argument that holds. There were no other Lord Marshalls around. He must have wanted the "of Chipstead" part of the title to be included as he could well have chosen to be styled simply Baron Marshall. One reason may have been that "Lord Marshall" could be confused with Lord Marshal of England. Whether he wrote the Who's Who article himself is irrelevant (it's not a good source if that's the case). Of course he may have styled himself simply as Lord Marshall in some cases, and I think it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to him in the article as simply Marshall or Lord Marshall. I think we can agree that the correct title was Baron Marshall of Chipstead. I think we should have the correct title in the article name and in the article itself. I can only stand by my suggestion to move the article to Horace Brooks Marshall, 1st Baron Marshall of Chipstead. Regards, Tryde (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. In light of the LG citation I agree with you! I was merely expressing my surprise that Who's Who would have made such a mistake in titles - in my experience this is unheard of. I don't agree, however, that self-authorship does not make Who's Who entries a good source, since they are for the most part recording the simple facts of the individual's life and career (something they are likely to know best in any case) and not offering subjective opinions. They were also, no doubt, checked for authenticity before publication, otherwise WW would not be held to be the authoritative source that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood you then. So you agree the article should be named Horace Brooks Marshall, 1st Baron Marshall of Chipstead? Tryde (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That's fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Extinct Earldoms

Sorry, but I have undone your recent cat adds on the articles for the Earldoms of Angus, Mar and Cambridge. They are NOT extinct, the 14th Earl of Mar and Kellie is very much alive and well, and so is the 31st Countess of Mar. As far as the Earldoms of Angus and Cambridge are concerned they are both subsidiary titles of the Dukedom of Hamilton, the Earldom of Angus being the oldest of the present Duke's titles. Brendandh (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've posted this to Brendandh but as it was a while back you might miss my reply.
More problems than that I fear. The Hamilton page claims they hold the Cambridge earldom which is extinct according to Debretts/Cracrofts as an English peerage. There seems to be a confusion as to the later 'resignation/regrant' - only possible for Scottish titles - and English peerage law based on reading the Scottish (S) creation of Arran and Cambridge as two creations S+E. Then we have the problem of the French 'Dukedom' which uncited claims that title by what remainder is anyone's guess.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Duke/Earl of Atholl

Although in theory there is no problem with splitting articles, as you did with Duke of Atholl, there are issues with the way you have done this. First of all, it appears from the history as if you created the Earl of Atholl article when in reality you simply copied other people's work. This loses attribution, required by the GFDL. Secondly, there are no end of redirects to the Duke of Atholl page which need to be split between the two articles. And even when split, which does Marquess of Atholl belong to? And so on. Thirdly there may be links which go to the wrong place. All of these things can be resolved, but you should be aware of them when splitting articles. A final point to consider is that splits are generally only done when articles are too large. That wasn't obviously the case here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this split just doesn't work. There would be no end of work as redirects like "Earls of Atholl" can't be simply changed and it isn't clear whether links to Earl of Atholl should go to that article or to Duke of Atholl. Everything needs to be checked manually, which is a lot of work for nothing. I've undone the changes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that I created the article but there is no other way to do it, is there? Most of the redirects would still go to the Duke of Atholl article, as they are subsidiary titles of the dukedom. I will go through the redirects one by one. Marquess of Atholl would redirect to the article on the dukedom, as this is a subsidiary title to this peerage (there were no other creations of the marquessate of Atholl). I think a split like this is very motivated as the page as it appears now is very hard to read or understand. There is also no connection between the earlier creations and the Murray dukedom. Regards, Tryde (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably best to have this discussion at Talk:Duke of Atholl where more people will see it. I've copied these comments over to there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Glengall and Baron Cahir

The whole area was hopelessly confused. There were spelling issues as well as titles issues. For example, "Baron Cahir", "Baron of Cahir", "Baron Caher", "Baron of Caher". It became necessary to take one as the most correct and then move all the best bits into that vehicle. Some transitory arrangements were necessary to give effect to this so as not to lose all material. Lastly, the Earl article had almost nothing in it that concerned the earldom. Almost all of it contained detail on the barony. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So can we agree that we move the material to Earl of Glengall when that article is restored? Tryde (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

MOS for succession boxes?

Hi Tryde, I notice that in improving the succession box for Barnham Rider you've left quite full versions of the names visible. I'd have displayed them as plain Thomas Culpeper and John Finch. Is there a WP:MOS for names in succession boxes, or UK MP succession boxes (I can't find either, but that doesn't mean they aren't lurking somewhere!), or is it left to the whim/discretion of individual editor? Would have asked BHG but she seems to be having a real wikibreak and hasn't edited for a while. (Perhaps just as well that she's off the scene this week, given that Boleyn has become active again and is still creating work for other people.) Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The style used for baronets (if they were baronets at the time) in lists and succession boxes has always been "Sir John Smith, Bt" (however, the "Bt" part is left out in some lists). This was after all their proper names. I don't know if there is a MOS for this. Courtesy titles are used for heir apparents of earls, marquesses and dukes. Logically the courtesy title "The Honourable" for sons of earls, viscounts and barons should also be used (shortened to "Hon."). This is probably more a whim of mine and not used consistently in contrast to the courtesy title "Lord" for younger sons of dukes and marquesses. Regards, Tryde (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

John Conyers (MP)

In your lengthy and un-edit-summaried work on this page, while undoing my hand-crafted succession box which spanned the two parliaments you actually managed to leave it showing the Great Britain parliament for the pre-1707 section! Fixed. But I still think the months are important to show the 1701 changes. Unless there's an MOS or other guideline you can point to which prohibits the months, please don't delete them again. I see no reason to remove Edward's dates, which are given by Rayment - you didn't explain your removal, and I have replaced them. I can understand some of the changes you have made, but it's a courtesy to editors to be a bit more communicative when doing major edits to a page on which serious effort has been expended. PamD (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Barons of Langford

Hello,

maybe you have also information about barons of Langford from Gorges family? Couldn't you do that? ( By the way, don't you know about some references about Görges part of a family ( I mean how does the change happend) - and I'm shure it is, cause of family tree.

Thanks

--Bironet (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Murray (of Strowan)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lord Bernard Gordon-Lennox

Many thanks for starting the article Tryde! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Ormond (Ireland)

Nice work in tidying up the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 9, 2010

Hello,

You have conducted a number of recent edits removing material, changing infobox (Infobox Officeholder) required data and placing a maintenance tag Cleanup without describing why on the discusion page. This is disturbing and with no comment on the article discussion or talk page primarily for the "cleanup tag" is unproductive and confusing.

When placing a "cleanup" tag, please describe why. What part of Wikipedia standards that are being violated is important to creating better article? This is very important for a reviewer to do. It helps Wikipedia become better.

You have also removed a whole section of each article on the family's "Coat of Arms" as "irrelevant."

You may not be aware, but in the Portal:Genealogy, coat of arms are desired in such articles. Since every article is considered independent, the infomation is placed in each article. The "Coat of Arms" is relevant to the article. Just clicking on the Portal:Genealogy you will see a coat of arms, that should be a major clue. In addition, complete names and titles are needed in such articles in the lede. The primary reason is due to a similarity of names and titles over generations. In addtion, while European standards use the title in the article, Wikipedia uses the surname instead.

I hope this explains most items of concern. The articles in question are:

I am reverting your recent edits, and based on the information above, you can start over, as needed, with any "Cleanup" tag provided you provide a clue or two why in the discussion page. This is not an "edit war" but a desire to explain reasons why some things are needed in the article, info box and in the article. I hope you will take this in a positive and constructive manner.

And yes, most of these articles are just at or above start class. They need more information and detail. And constructive edits are always welcome. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I have never seen such a lengthy section on coat of arms in any biographical article on Wikipedia. And I don't see how this is relevant to the article. I suggest this material is moved to the article Earl of Tyrconnel as it's common for peerage articles to have information on coat of arms. Is there any relation between the Carpenter Earls of Tyrconnel and the other people mentioned? Carpenter must be a very common surname?
  • As for the info boxes. In the article on the first Baron, the info box stated that he was "Baron of Killaghy" from 1719 to 1731. Was this a feudal title? If so, I can't see how this would be relevant. It can't be viewed as an "office" anyway. I have never seen feudal or peerage articles included in info boxes in contrast to the reigns of monarchs.
  • You say: "...complete names and titles are needed in such articles in the lede. The primary reason is due to a similarity of names and titles over generations. In addtion, while European standards use the title in the article, Wikipedia uses the surname instead." What do you mean by this? I spent a great deal of time correcting the titles in the articles as you seem to have very little grasp of British peerage titles and styles. "Lord George Carpenter" for instance is the style used by the younger son of a duke of marquess, not the style used by a Baron. Tryde (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

Regarding "Coat of Arms" in articles. Please see the article of the month: Roosevelt family#Coat of arms and Roosevelt (surname)#Coat of arms. These COAs sections are about as large as the "Carpenter Coat of Arms" section. The difference is the explanation NOTE: paragraph (which makes the Carpenter version slightly larger), which could be placed in a note section if size is a direct concern. If these Carpenter title articles were expanded, this is what I would do.

The infobox is the Template:Infobox officeholder in the general format covers MPs and such. Template:Infobox peerage title might be a more appropiate infobox. What do you think? Unless they were public or life officer holders in England?

Peerage is a rank of aristocracy and honors. The term "peerage" technically refers to a subset of the complete system of titles of nobility. Example: William de Ufford, 2nd Earl of Suffolk. And yes, I may be wrong in the use of "Lord" or "Earl" in the lede name portion in Wikipedia. It is not very clear in Wikipedia where peerage style is used differently from other biographical articles. I am far from perfect! I do make mistakes, including stupid ones! And yes, Lord is used on articles in Wikipedia both ways, for example: Lord Colin Campbell. See the following for more.

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage for general rules for standardizing such articles. There it hints the term earl or baron is used in the name only if the person was commonly known as such. Regarding barons & earls; earls, countesses, viscounts, viscountesses,barons, and baronesses bear the styles of The Right Honourable and Lordship in the infobox.

Lord can denote a prince or a feudal superior. The title today is mostly used in connection with the peerage of the United Kingdom. The title 'Lord' is used most often by barons who are rarely addressed with any other. The style of this address is 'Lord (X)', for example, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, is commonly known as 'Lord Tennyson'. The ranks of marquess, earl and viscounts commonly use lord as well, with viscounts using the same style as used for baron. However, marquesses and earls have a slightly different form of address where they can be called either the 'Marquess/Earl of (X)' or 'Lord (X)'. The title, lord also applies by courtesy to some or all of their children; for example the sons of a title lord can use the style 'Lord (first name) (surname)'. rational, is that the senior surviving male child will inherit the title. This is extracted from the Wikipedia article on Lord.

Thus Lord George Carpenter if used in Wikipedia would be correct in the lede followed by the title. Properly one would use Lord Carpenter in the rest of the article provided he held that title for most of his life. Unless he was commonly known otherwise. Before one of the George Carpenter's sons held the barony or earldom, the courtesy title of Lord George Carpenter could apply until elevated after the death of his sire, then when he would be properly be known as Lord Carpenter.

Once George Carpenter became an earl, he could be referred to as Lord Carpenter or Earl of Tyrconnell within the article, and within the lede as Lord George Carpenter folowed by the title.

From the article of Earl of Tyrconnell is the Baron & Earl hereditary lineage that is from father to son until the titles became extinct. This surname Carpenter is less than 3% (surnames less than 3% was lumped together) of the surnames in England. The same infobox is used through out these articles for consistantcy. In the USA, Carpenter is the 189th-most common surname.

Baron Carpenter (of Killaghy) (1719)

Earls of Tyrconnell, fourth creation (1761)

FYI, this pacticular Carpenter "Coat of Arms" has been used since the early 1400s in England by one family. After 1853, by daughtering out and marriages that COAs continue to the present with William Boyd Carpenter and his descendents. Thomas Boyd-Carpenter, son of John Boyd-Carpenter, Baron Boyd-Carpenter holds today this pacticular COAs. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Is there any particular reason why the Earls of Tyrconnel all have succession boxes labelled "Peerage of England" when it appears to be an Irish title? PamD (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
H'mm - The Earl of Tyrconnell was created in 1761. Lets figure it out ...
The Peerage of Ireland is the term used for those titles of nobility created by the English and later British monarchs of Ireland in their capacity as Lord or King of Ireland. The creation of such titles came to an end in the 19th century. The ranks of the Irish peerage are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. The British Crown continues to exercise jurisdiction over the Peerage of Ireland, including those peers whose titles derive from places located in what is now the Republic of Ireland.
The Peerage of England comprises all peerages created in the Kingdom of England before the Act of Union in 1707. In that year, the Peerages of England and Scotland were replaced by one Peerage of Great Britain. - So this does not apply because 1763 came after.
The Peerage of Great Britain comprises all extant peerages created in the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Act of Union 1707 but before the Act of Union 1800. It replaced the Peerages of England and Scotland, until it was itself replaced by the Peerage of the United Kingdom in 1801. - This seems correct because 1763 falls between was between 1707 and 1800.
The Peerage of the United Kingdom comprises most peerages created in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the Act of Union in 1801, when it replaced the Peerage of Great Britain. - So this does not seem to apply.
So does both Peerage of Ireland & Peerage of England both apply? Thoughts? I will go with the consensus. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Jrcrin, if you check my edit history my edit history you would find that lecturing me about the British peerage is hardly necessary... There is a guideline for how peers should be introduced in articles, see here. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (c. 1 May 1769 – 14 September 1852) was..., not Lord Arthur Wellesley (c. 1 May 1769 – 14 September 1852), 1st Duke of Wellington... As I said above "Lord George Carpenter" is a courtesy title used by the younger son of a duke or marquess (for instance Lord Colin Campbell), not by peers in their own right. It is also wrong to refer to the Earl of Tyrconnel as "Lord Carpenter". I will go through the articles on the Carpenter peers and make the necessary changes.
As for the Coat of arms sections. Yes, this section would be relevant in an article on the Carpenter family, not in every article on members of the Carpenter family. In the article on George Carpenter, 1st Baron Carpenter, how can it be revelant to mention that ..." John Boyd-Carpenter, Baron Boyd-Carpenter (1908–1998), continued the Arms into the new century by passing it down to his son, Thomas Boyd-Carpenter, who was himself knighted after a military career as a Lieutenant-General and for public service"? You are obviously interested in the family so I suggest you create an article on the Carpenter family and include the material on the coat of arms there.
As for the infobox. I have never seen the time a peer held a certain title mentioned in info boxes. I think Infobox peer is useless and suggest that infobox person is used here.
All the Carpenter titles were in the Peerage of Ireland. Otherwise the 2nd earl couldn't have been a member of the House of Commons after succeeding to the titles. Tryde (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
And this time, please do not just revert my changes to the articles. Tryde (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some 20 plus Carpenter COAs, but the one referring to this line is the often referred to as the Hereford Arms. In the articles, I tried to provide a history of where they had been and where they went similar to succession box in prose. I think you are suggesting writing a Carpenter Coat of Arms (Hereford) type article, then referring to it via {Main|Carpenter Coat of Arms (Hereford)} in each article? Then the Coat of Arms section of the other articles can be truncated? (last questions for now!)

Regarding your recent edits. I have learned some are correct, some are so-so and I think a few may be wrong. But, based on compromise and discussion, your goal and mine are better articles on Wikipedia. So I will not quibble on the few. And I do appreciate your time, patience and effort. I started to incorporate several of the items we discussed above and you completed and expanded upon them. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)