Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Lord/Baron Fellowes

Currently Lord Fellowes is a disambiguation page, whilst Baron Fellowes is a redirect to Robert Fellowes, Baron Fellowes. That this seems oddly inconsistent to me is perhaps neither here nor there, but is it correct? It has been suggested to me off-wiki that Robert Fellowes, as the earlier creation, retains the (in Wikipedia terms) undisambiguated style, and Julian Fellowes is 'Fellowes of West Stafford'. Presence or absence of comma before the 'of' is significant? William Avery (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It ought to be significant. Whether we correctly represent reliable sources is another question.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The two peers are: Baron Fellowes, of Shotesham in the County of Norfolk and Baron Fellowes of West Stafford, of West Stafford in the County of Dorset. The comma is as you suggest king. Only the first is unquestionably Baron/Lord Fellowes. The latter title should be in full in any formal use (exactly as we do on the wiki entry) though informally 'Lord Fellowes' is used for both. PMAnderson's latter point is I agree an issue. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian Fellowes' peerage is sourced to the London Gazette, and that is their form. Unless this RS has a typo, that one's right. As for inconsistency: the difference is the same as that between, say, the 2nd Lord Esher, who is known by his peerage, and Laurence Olivier, who is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lord Olivier redirect to Baron Olivier rather than to Laurence Olivier? Opera hat (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless the actor is primary referent over his uncle, which is at least arguable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment -- According to normal arrangements, the dabpage should be at Baron Fellowes and should be expanded to a brief substantive article, such as we have on most similar titles held by more than one person. Lord Fellowes should redirect to that. Julian Fellowes has been in the news for a successful TV series, but I suspect that the royal private secretary ought to be the primary subject if we needed one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming articles using titles

Just a heads up, a drive to remove article titles including baronetcies is underway by User:Mais oui!. He has removed a link I posted to his talk pointing to the guidelines, with the statement our standard way to disambiguate is by occupation, not titles. So there you have it. I don't really want to get too involve to I'll leave this to consensus. Benea (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved all but one of the articles back to their original name. Tryde (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He continues. I've moved two more back, but somebody else should watch this pointless campaign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord John FitzGerald

Members of the project may want to contribute here. Tryde (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

William Maule, 1st Baron Panmure

This article states that: "Lord Panmure created a scandal when he departed to Italy with Christina Mackay. He remained with her, predominantly in Italy, until his death in 1852. Together they had one illegitimate child James Mackay. James Mackay married Deborah Lyle of Nova Scotia and their second son was James Lyle Mackay, 1st Earl of Inchcape." This material was added by an anonymous IP address back in 2008. I am now wondering if it's true that Lord Inchcape was the grandson of Lord Panmure? Tryde (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Panmure's ODNB life, although he does seem to have scandalized the Victorians with his dissoluteness. It doesn't sound like he would have bothered to leave Great Britain, and he died in Forfarshire. (Also, the chronology is a bit tight. Inchcape was born in 1852, only thirty years after Panmure's second marriage. It takes some time for even a Regency aristocrat to be off with a new wife and settle with a mistress.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

CP says Panmure was estranged from his first wife, not his second; this seems inconsistent with the passage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How to refer to peers in running text

I have been involved in a curious discussion with another user at Talk:Order of Merit. He or she insists on referring to Charles Middleton, 1st Baron Barham as "the Lord Barham" in the running text, instead of the normal and simpler "Lord Barham". Should we refer to Lord Byron as "the Lord Byron" in running text, for instance? The more formal style of "The Lord X" or "The Marquess of X" should of course be used in lists and info boxes. I would like to hear from others here. Tryde (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be just "Lord X" (or in some cases just "X") - that's normal English.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My usual practice (which I probably don't stick to very well) is to use "the Lord X" (or "the Earl of X", etc.) until about the Civil War (on the basis that rank actually mattered somewhat up to that point; it certainly did in the Middle Ages when Earls were nominally responsible for counties), and then "Lord X" for everyone afterwards (on the basis that by then rank didn't really matter, except perhaps for Dukes). But that's just my personal preference. Proteus (Talk) 15:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, Tryde, "The Lord X" is a formal style, still used on envelopes, in monumental inscriptions and so forth. To use it outside any formal context would (in my view) be terribly old-fashioned and/or pompous. Moonraker (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord Elystan-Morgan

In recent days, an anon ip has made several edits to the biography of Lord Elystan-Morgan. They don't appear on first glance to be very problematic and a brief review of the IP's contributions in the past did not reveal any glaring problems. But at least one of the changes, the inclusion of the name, birth and death dates of a spouse, are something that I've been unable to confirm. I would normally think that the passing of the wife of a peer would merit at least passing mention in the newspapers, but Google news archives turns up no mention of her - ever, as far as I can see.

As the information is not glaringly negative (though it could be hurtful if false, to some degree) I didn't think it urgent enough to remove instantly on BLP grounds. But I do think it should be removed within 24 hours if we are unable to find some form of confirmation. As I know others here will have better access to some sources than I do, I thought I'd post here for assistance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Her name and existence are noted here, a copy of an article from the Western Mail; this was from 2003.

But there are more serious problems; his speech against blasphemy laws (and the quotation from Dawkins which is embedded in it) needs citation, and the fact that he sits cross-bench (not surprising for a Judge, but unmentioned). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I seek your guidance about the best way to handle the question of the spouse. As we do not have an obituary, we do not have a reliable source for Lady Elystan-Morgan's passing, if true. For now I have simply removed her birth and death dates and also the bit about her parent. I strongly suspect that all those details are true, added by someone close to them, but without a source I don't feel comfortable keeping it. I will now look for a source for the blasphemy speech.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to consult Debrett's Peerage for the basic biographical details of titled relatives of Peers. (Sadly Burke's Peerage, which rose from the dead a few years ago, has headed once again to the grave.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Debrett says this: "m 1959 Alwen, who d 2006, da of William E. Roberts, and has issue..." I'll add these details, with a citation. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

John Prescott's concerns

This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."

He also tweeted about it about an hour ago.

I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Wikipedia article.

I have posted as well at the talk page of the article, and will be posting at WP:BLPN to draw more minds to this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, can't see anything that jumps out. Of course this could all be referring to a prior version of the article. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on nationalization policy is mostly speculative history about the inner councils of the Lagour Party; it could use many more sources, and not the Telegraph - nor the Daily Mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is a great deal more grown-up than John Prescott. I see he is quoted as saying "when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia", I am sceptical about whether that is an accurate report of his conversation. He does not even say who he was speaking to. It strikes me as very unlikely that a Telegraph editor or journalist would say the paper had relied on Wikipedia for its information. This is not a paper which behaves foolishly and gets itself into the libel courts. Its proprietors expect all staff to take responsibility themselves for what they write and approve. Moonraker (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most wanted baronets

Are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Most wanted baronets. (Note the tool, and the way I used it, requires that there is a redlink for them on one of the baronetcy pages.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Byronic boosterism?

There have been some very curious edits to Byron King-Noel, Viscount Ockham, and on various related pages, from 220.245.94.232. As this page was created by a now-banned user, and has seen only 'technical' editing since, I'd be concerned that potentially no-one is watching it -- perhaps some members of this WPJ might be interested in doing so. (I get the strong impression that these edits are from someone with a mail-order 'lordship of the manor' and some dubious postnominals, and is looking for a page to 'host' some self-promotion.) 84.203.74.123 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

There is a website called Leigh Rayment's Peer Page and as far as I can tell not only is it self published but it pages (here is one selected at random) do not seem to carry any citations to any other source.

The problem is that there are a number of templates that link to this website and the information from that website is embedded in thousands of Wikipedia pages.

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

Template	Text	Transclusions count
{{Rayment}}	Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages	2933
{{Rayment-b}}	Leigh Rayment's List of Baronets	2177
{{Rayment-bd}}	This page incorporates information from Leigh Rayment's Baronetage Page which has further dates on it, not shown above	29
{{Rayment-bt}}	This page incorporates information from Leigh Rayment's Baronetage page	65
{{Rayment-hc}}	Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs	6333
{{Rayment-hc-ie}}	Leigh Rayment's historical List of Members of the Irish House of Commons	158
{{Rayment-pc}}	Leigh Rayment's Privy Council Page	4

Template:Rayment survived an AfD back in 2006.

I have been searching around to see if the reliability of this site has ever been discussed. I could find no entry in the archives of the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Some people have implied that the website is reliable in the archives of this page, but there does not seem to have been any specific discussion about the site and whether it is a reliable source.

Note particularly the specific comments in Archive 3: Breaches of Copyright (it seeems the author does not like Wikipedia reproducing his pages and there are some deliberate errors in them so he can check for copying violations (although the view at the time was that the lists could not be protected these errors may be a problem)) and archive 9: overly broad external links not about reliability but about the relevance of some of the templates.

(So that the information here is more complete and can be used as one point of reference in the future. Leigh Rayment (or someone posing as Leigh Rayment) made two edits as 203.61.124.39 in June 2004. The first edit was transferred to Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation#Historic list of members of the Privy Council. the second edit is in this talk page archive: Archive 3: Breaches of Copyright ). -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT "Leigh Rayment's Peer Page" fails as a reliable source (but maybe I am missing something). In the opinion of people who read this page is this website a reliable source and can it be cited and used as a reliable source to meet the requirements of WP:V? -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I edit RS/N primarily. This is not a reliable source. It is an SPS. It doesn't have an EXPERT exemption. There is no editorial control. There is no editorial policy. It also fails ELNO 1, 2, 11, and possibly 16 (cf: [1]) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, "Rayment" is technically not a reliable source. Nevertheless, experience shows that it is usually reliable. There are many much less good sources that are regularly used in WP. Though they are not cited by Rayment, it seems to me that the website is in fact a compilation from reliable sources. WP should certainly encourage the substitution of information from better sources for it, but until we get that done, we should leave things as they are. A less-than-ideal source is better than no source. I would thus consider it a retrograde move to remove all references to Rayment from WP without replacing them with references to other sources. Rayment has the advantage of being Internet-accessible without subscription. Burke's peerage requires a subscription; Debrett is (I think) only available as hard copy. GEC Complete Peerage (now an older work, but still excellent), likewise - save that information from it has been incorporated in www.thepeerage.com. I do not know the easy sources for lists of MPs. I have occasionally foudn errors in Rayment, but they are few. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created hundreds of articles on British MPs, and edited thousands of others. I used to Rayment as a reference until I got other reference books (Craig, Stooks Smith, Times guides), and the London Gazette went online. I too have very occasionally found errors in Rayment, but they are very very rare, and that's after using every single page his MP lists. So I rate Rayment's work on MPs very highly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with what Peter and BrownHairedGirl say on this matter. Rayment is not technically a reliable source, but he's almost always accurate when checked against reliable sources. We should try to replace citations to him with ones to actual reliable sources, but we shouldn't delete accurate information because he's the source. To Peter I would add that Cracroft's Peerage is available for free online (or much of it is, at any rate), but I'm not sure whether it would technically count as a reliable source, either. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is probably much too conservative/inflexible in its treatment of online/self-published sources. We shouldn't indiscriminately rely on such material, but there are many self-published online sources that are very accurate and extremely useful. On the other hand, there's all kinds of non-self-published material that probably shouldn't be used - being in a printed book is no guarantee of accuracy. It would be good if we could find some way to identify self-published sources that are reliable, rather than indiscriminately excluding them. john k (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For Parliament there are several good sources available online. I think that http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ is good. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree for all the reasons given above except on Cracrofts which seems to meet the reliable test Garlicplanting (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Parliament is certainly the most accurate but it leaves off in 1832. Note that Rayment was apparently used as a source by the Hansard digitisation project, but considered imperfect: if you look at the page of any MP it says "Information presented on this page was prepared from the XML source files, together with information from the History of Parliament Trust, the work of Leigh Rayment and public sources. The means by which names are recognised means that errors may remain in the data presented." An example here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that alters my view. If they are willing to use and cite rayment as a source (even with a qualification) then I rather feel we're churlish to decide he's not acceptable. I wonder if being cited in such a way is prima facie expert status. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. If an internet source is being cited by a clearly reliable source as a source that they themselves relied on, it seems absurd to say he's not a reliable source. john k (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Hansard project was not aware of the nature of Rayment's errors (i.e. "copyright traps" as it were)? Ardric47 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since copyright traps are common enough in many commercial sources I don't see that has any baring one way or another. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of Millbank Systems as a verification source for Rayment is presumably they will have crossed checked the data, but that does not make Rayment a reliable source, or changes the advise that a "better source is needed". -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We're cross checking as well as we do with officially 'reliable sources' because they often disagree. It seems to me we're holding rayment to achieve a standard that our other 'reliable' sources failGarlicplanting (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, Rayment's greatest deficiency is not inaccuracies (which are rare), but his failure to adequately distinguish between constituencies. He does not distinguish between parliamentary boroughs and the later eponymous county divisions, and most frustratingly he tends to make no distinction in Wales between boroughs and districts of boroughs. However, his lists of MPs are remarkably thorough, and his inclusion of full names and later titles makes his work a useful companion to Craig's frustrating use of initials only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See Template talk:Rayment#Reliability and my comment that starts "I posed the question..." and continues "I have therefore appended two templates {{Self-published inline}} and {{Better source}} to the template so that readers and editors are warned about the source and requested to proved a better one." -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

On Francis Hovell-Thurlow-Cumming-Bruce, 8th Baron Thurlow, someone used one of Leigh Rayment's pages to prove that Baron Thurlow is alive and reached his 100th birthday (well, they actually used a Google group referring to that page, but whatever). Outside of this citation, I can't find any evidence that he was alive beyond 1999 (per [2]) so I had him in "Category:Possibly living people". I'm being a bit overly cautious because one site lists him as having died in 1990 (obviously incorrect given the previous source), but if Leigh Rayment is reliable in this instance, I'd be happy to re-instate Category:Living people and add him to the Lists of centenarians. Canadian Paul 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think the answer is ultimately that Rayment is a compilation from WP:RS. The only problem is that he did not cite his sources. In an ideal world we would all work from the Primary Scources, but generally that is not feasible, and we have to rely on secondary, tertiary, or worse sources. Rayment has made mistakes (whehter deliberate copyright traps or accidental ones), but the experience that the site is generally reliable seems to mean that we should treat it as WP:RS, even if it does not meet the technical specification for one. I suspoect that there are many works in the same category whose reliability is rarely questioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The most serious error in Rayment is that for many pre-registration individuals baptism dates are given as birth dates, and burial dates as death dates. Where possible I am replacing LR by History of Parliament Online and Cockayne's Complete Baronetage. That said, LR has been invaluable as a basis for a huge number of articles that would not otherwise exist.Motmit (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Baroness of Douglas at AfD

I have nominated the article Baroness of Douglas for deletion. Editors who wish to contribute to the debate may add their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baroness of Douglas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lucan

Hi there, could anyone offer their input into a proposed move of this article from Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan to Lord Lucan? Question posed here. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of articles on baronetcies

User:Crusoe8181 has proposed renaming all articles on baronetcies from "X Baronets" (with a capital "B") to "X baronets" (with a lower-case "b"). There is a discussion at Talk:Abdy Baronets if anyone would like to give their views. Tryde (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Ferrers, 5th Baron Boteler of Wem

Please discuss whether a name change for this article is justified, on the article's talk page.Hrishikes (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean discuss it at Talk:Robert Ferrers, 5th Baron Boteler of Wem#Name change? -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you understood.Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Images of genealogical relationships

I have raised the issue of using editor created images of genealogical relationships at WP:RS (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Images of genealogical relationships). Genealogical relationships are often added to biography articles that come under the overview of the PEER project, so editors who watch this page may like to comment there. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories:Extinct peerages ...

I made Category:Extinct earldoms in the Peerage of Ireland a subcategory of Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Ireland, and removed articles in the former from direct membership in the latter, according to the usual practice of subcategories; naturally intending to do the same, someday, for the other 24 analogous pairs of categories. User:Tryde disagrees (see my Talk page) and reverted. Discuss. —Tamfang (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both categories should be subcategories of Category:Earldoms. We then get a good overview of all substantive earldoms created as well as those that are extinct. Tryde (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, whenever one category is naturally a subset of another, it ought to be a subcategory. A bare list is not what I'd call "a good overview"; fortunately List of earldoms exists. —Tamfang (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No one else has any opinion at all? Here's another case: I happened to notice that Prince Albert of Saxony (the new pretender) ∈ Category:Saxon princes ∈ Category:House of Wettin; removed him from the supercat, and was soon reverted because ... well, see Talk:Prince Albert of Saxony#supercategory, I don't pretend (ha ha) to understand. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion:Category dukedoms

It would be good if someone with knowledge on the subject could contribute to this discussion. Tryde (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tuppence worth thrown in for what it's worth. I quite agree. Brendandh (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it amazing how editors with no prior experience in editing peerage related articles, and no apparent knowledge on the subject, are willing to give their views. This thing should be discussed here among editors who knows something about the subject. This is an area of Wikipedia that doesn't work. Tryde (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency Re: titles of articles on Baronets

I notice a lot of inconsistency in the titles of articles about Baronets... some include "Sir" (as in "Sir John Doe")... others do not (entitled just "John Doe")... still others include lineage ("Sir John Doe, 2nd Baronet" etc.)... is there a project guideline on this? Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The form "Sir John Doe, xth Baronet" is used only if it is necessary to disambiguate the baronet from other John Does. (This stems from a political compromise with the Irish nationalists a long while ago; discussion is probably in the archives somewhere.) Choess (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps... now, what about the issue of including "Sir" in the article title? My assumption is that we should include it, unless WP:COMMONNAME indicates something different (ie: the default is to include "Sir", but if a significant majority of sources refer to him/her without the "Sir", then we should follow the sources and omit it as well)... does this match project conventions? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There are different types of "Sir". What the naming convention main guidance is about is the case of a sir for a baronet -- if the baronet title is included for dab reasons then include the "Sir" as well (WP:NCPEER). In practice because English gentry have little imagination with the use of Christian names many biographies on the members of baronet families have article titles that include the baronetcy for dab reasons and so start with "Sir ...". For knighthoods the advise is by default not to include "Sir" unless it is needed for disambiguation purposes -- but of course as you say WP:COMMONNAME comes into play -- (WP:NCPEER). -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The principle is that articles are (with exceptions) located at the highest title a person achieved. For a Baronet, that is as baronet. His full title is Sir John Smith, 5th Baronet, John Smith, 5th Baronet would be insulting. If he were a peer, it would be John Smith, Baron Smith. By convention, WP normally does not use the prefix Sir for knighthoods. I am not sure why, but it may be to facilitate searching. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales

A move is underfoot to move this article to Prince Charles. Any input is welcome. john k (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Peers aren't styled "Sir"

• 94.65.32.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP 94.65.32.228 has made dozens of edits over the last few hours removing sir from Peerage articles with the edit history comment of:

• Peers aren't styled "Sir"

I have blocked the account for 72 hours to allow this WikiProject time to discuss the issue and decide if the IP address is correct and that the edits should be allowed to stand and more to be made. -- PBS (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:94.65.32.228

This is from WP:PEERAGE:

"Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet. --94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Relating to which, User_talk:Kittybrewster#Titles. Support the temp block. Don't agree to remove knighthoods or baronetcies. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be an inconsistency in the rulings in this article. We have '"Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet' followed by an example list of Smith baronets, of London (1750–) all titled 'Sir'. as Kittybrewster pointed out elsewhere, Sir Geoffrey Howe was definitely known as Sir Geoffrey before he became Lord Howe. He doesn't lose his knighthood because he is promoted, although he no longer uses it. Shipsview (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That isnt inconsistent. We refer to Mr Howe until he is knighted (1970-92), then to Sir Geoffrey until he is further promoted. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? No we don't. We never refer to "Mr Howe": we refer to "Howe" per MOS. -Rrius (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I seem to be missing something here. The IP removed "Sir" from before the name in the bold iteration of the title at the beginning of the lead. For instance here, he or she replaced "Sir Robert Shapland Carew, 2nd Baron Carew KP" with "Robert Shapland Carew, 2nd Baron Carew KP" as the first words of the article. How is that wrong? Howe, not one of the ones IP edited, starts with the name exactly as IP would have rendered it and notes "Sir Geoffrey Howe" as a previous version of his name. -Rrius (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the IP should be blocked for following the guidelines at WP:PEERAGE. A peer is never referred to as Sir even if they have a knighthood or baronetage. Hack (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. It looks like IP is being blocked for sockpuppetry, not the substance of the edits. That does leave open the question of whether the substance was correct. -Rrius (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocks are preemptive not punishment. My opinion is that where the Knighthood is a KP, KT, KCSI or Bt then the Sir disappears in the title at the beginning of the lead. Contrast Geoffrey Howe. Or Andrew Lloyd Webber. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The block is for a bit of both, but primarily it was prevenatative. In the hour before I made the block the IP address altered about 100 pages removing Sir from the first sentence. As such it was a preventative block to see what the consensus here was. It seems that the consensus is that the edits have done no harm. There is also a question about whether this IP address is being used as a sock but that is not the issue that this page need to address. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. I approached the refusing admin, and if he had refused, I was going to AN/I. You blocked an editor for 72 hours without warning. IP engaged with you at his or her talk page, including giving you the link and a direct quote, but instead you delayed by asking here and at Kittybrewster's page, the latter probably wasting the most time since she clearly misunderstood what IP was supposed to have been doing. Now you've got an SPI going based on nothing. Is that just an attempt to save face or is there actually some genuine connection to Vintagekits you aren't sharing with the rest of the class? -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Vintagekits was a prolific sockpuppeteer who had a thing about Peers and Baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In Scotland, a feudal barony is not to be confused with a peerage; a blanket approach of de-Sirring anyone who is a "baron" is likely to lead to confusion/error (eg Sir Thomas Bruce, 1st Baron of Clackmannan).

45ossington (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The truth is that I hesitated a bit in this particular one.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you did not hesitate long enough as you have changed Scottish barons, wrongly in my view.Shipsview (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Referring back to my question about inconsistency, above, the directive appears to say that "Sir" should not be used, but gives examples with it being used. This requires clarification.Shipsview (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage includes "Sir" when giving the full names of peers, whether knights (e.g. the Lord Lloyd-Webber) or baronets (e.g. the Lord Rothschild). Opera hat (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the examples you give the forename/surname are separated from the title (parenthesis) but have the post nominals appended to them so the 'Sir' is certainly needed.Garlicplanting (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dukedom categories from Britain and Ireland

I have opened a deletion discussion on five categories which are within the scope of this WikiProject: Category:Dukedoms of the United Kingdom, Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain, Category:Dukedoms of Scotland, Category:Dukedoms of England, and Category:Dukedoms of Ireland.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at these categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does nobility automatically confer notability?

Can someone offer an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John de Trafford? I am operating under the assumption that nobility automatically confers notability but that may or may not be true. Can someone who knows more than I weigh in? Ryan Vesey 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough to ask and receive an answer, but de Trafford ia a baronet and is thus not noble Crusoe8181 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Baronies in the Peerage of Scotland

Category:Baronies in the Peerage of Scotland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Baronies in the Baronage of Scotland. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion vaguely related

When a Knight (or Baronet, or Dame) dies, should their entry on Deaths in 2012 be of the form "Sir A. B.", or should mention of the knighthood be excised? All previous cases on this page seem to include 'Sir' but there is a dispute over Sir Stuart Bell (d. 13 October). See Talk:Deaths in 2012#Knights. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Baron Kingsdown

Title used twice - 19th century, 1st Baron only, died with no heir; current life peer. Not sure whether this page should be a dab page, or expanded to something about the two titles. I just came across it while stub-sorting, so sorted it, but it looks like a dab page but has added categories... and now a stubtype. Someone fluent in barons might like to have a look at it! PamD 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this page is fine as it is. The categories are needed for the hereditary barony. Tryde (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you've removed the stub tag. I'm sure it won't be long before someone else labels it as either a dab page or a stub! If it's needed as a page about the hereditary barony, perhaps it needs to have some text about that barony rather than just a dab-page-like link to the one holder of it? PamD 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I have cut a pasted below a comment concerning succession boxes form the talk page of the Earl Mountbatten article. I invite any interested persons to comment on this topic on that talk page. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes serve to illustrate succession. If there is neither predecessor nor successor, i.e. if there is no succession to illustrate, why should the box be there? Such boxes are normally not included, which isn't suprprising, since it's common sense not to put useless templates into articles. Also, why should there be seperate boxes for titles that were granted at the exact same time and inherited by the same person? That is not common practice; in fact, it's not even common practice to include the lesser of such titles at all. See relevant articles for examples. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Anne, Duchess of Leinster, and Sally, Duchess of Newcastle

Are they alive? If alive, the former (b. 1922) would be 90 years old now. The latter was widowed in 1988 but I couldn't find her date of birth. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Baron Rich, etc

There is currently a discussion on this page; It was blanked, apparently according to the “normal standards used for peerage pages “. Can anyone shed any light on which standards for peerage pages allow for this?
I also note that this is one of a number of pages treated this way over the past few days; see Baron Ross, Baron Lovaine, Baron Windsor, Baron Audley of Walden and Baron Beauchamp of Bletso as examples. Swanny18 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In the instance where there was only one holder of a hereditary peerage, the article on the peerage is then a redirect to the article on that person, as in the cases of Baron Audley of Walden and Baron Beauchamp of Bletso. Subsidiary titles such as Baron Rich, Baron Lovaine, Baron Ross and Baron Windsor don't have their own articles - instead they are redirects to the respective substantive title, in these cases Earl of Warwick, Earl of Beverley, Earl of Glasgow and Earl of Plymouth. Tryde (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This kind of begs the question; I can see that’s what you have done; I’m less convinced that’s what you should have done.

It doesn’t say in the guidelines that titles with only one holder should automatically be at the titleholders page, or that if written as a title page it should necessarily be moved. And in the Beauchamp case the text describes five generations of Beauchamp's (with three of them named Roger) and shows the link between that title and the other other Bletso title, so it makes more sense as a title page.

And as for your subsidiary title comment, there are any number of subsidiary titles with their own pages (all the subsidiaries at Duke of Bedford, for example). So it is simply not the case that "subsidiary titles don't have their own articles", or that they must "redirect to their substantive titles"; only that that is the way you want it to be.

And my purpose here was to raise the issue and get a second opinion. Swanny18 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting titles to the individual when only one person has held them seems reasonable to me, and that's been accepted practice for quite a few years. Some redirection of subsidiary titles is reasonable: our articles on peerage titles tend to be rather stubby anyway, and it makes sense when possible not to break up the history of some family whose titles have steadily been increasing. It is a little difficult to work out a logical rule sometimes. What about this? "A subsidiary title may be redirected to the principal peerage title if and only if every holder of the principal title since its creation has held the subsidiary title AND vice-versa." That probably misses a few edge cases, but how do people feel about it as a start? Choess (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Choess. I think the rule you propose is the system that has been used for about eight years on Wikipedia. I can't remember anyone objecting to it before. It is logical and common sense for the material on the barony of Rich to be included in the article on the earldom of Warwick - keeping the history of the titles together. This is the system that is in use and I don't see why this should be any different. I agree that the Earl of Warwick article is somewhat cluttered - I have now tried to improve the layout. The alternative would be to create four separate articles for each creation of the earldom - there is no precedence for this and I don't know if there would be any support for this move. I think the Baron Rich article should now become a redirect to the section of the earldom created for the 3rd Baron Rich - this would make it easier for the reader.

As for the Duke of Bedford article - the subsidiary titles Baron Russell, Baron Howland and Marquess of Tavistock are all redirects to the article on the dukedom - all according to accepted practice. As there have been several creations of the earldom of Bedford this title has its own article - with a link to the Duke of Bedford article. Baron Russell of Thornhaugh created for a junior branch of the family that later inherited the dukedom is a separate article. I think all this is logical and common sense. Saying this I wouldn't object to Baron Russell becoming a disambiguation page as there have been several creations of this title with different territorial qualifications.

As for peerages with only one holder redirecting to the article on that holder - like Choess says this has been accepted practice for several years. I think we should update the guidelines to include this. Regarding the Baron Beauchamp of Bletso article - I think the main concern here should be to rewrite the article so that it is possible to understand it... Tryde (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Choess's proposal that "A subsidiary title may be redirected to the principal peerage title if and only if every holder of the principal title since its creation has held the subsidiary title AND vice-versa." Can someone suggest some permanent policy page where that can be recorded? No offense to Tryde, but in general I have never liked the idea of pages being turned into redirects without discussion, which in the past he has tended to do rather boldly. Moonraker (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Choess: On the subject of redirecting where there is only one titleholder, I'm not against the idea in principle, though its six and two threes whether its always appropriate. It makes sense in the B Audley case, but (like I said before) less so in the Beauchamp case. On redirecting subsidiary titles, (as I said in the other discussion) There may well be some logic to putting all examples of one title on the same page (like Baron Kensington, or Duke of Bedford), or all titles connected in linear fashion to each other, (as with Earl of Kimberley), but I don't think we should be mixing both schemes together. In the recent cases, the Ross and Lovaine moves may be fair enough, but the Windsor move was less straightforward. And there are advantages to having each title on its own page. But my main objection was the way it was done, without even a cursory nod to the WP:MERGE process.

Tryde: I’m having trouble seeing how you can agree with a re-statement of the principle that subsidiary titles should only be merged if all the title holders are in common, and in the same breath state the Baron Rich (and now B Brooke) pages should be moved to Earl of Warwick when they manifestly don’t qualify. I also note that, while we are discussing the matter, you’ve taken it on yourself to re-arrange the Earl of Warwick page, to accomodate your chosen course of action. (I've opened a discussion there, too). Do you not you think you are jumping the gun, a little? Swanny18 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Swanny18, can you explain to me the difference between the Baron Rich/Earl of Warwick and the Baron Wodehouse/Earl of Kimberley articles. The third Baron Rich was created an Earl - the third Baron Wodehouse was created an Earl. To quote you, in both cases the "titles [are] connected in linear fashion to each other". Why is it okay for the junior barony to redirect to the article on the earldom in the Kimberley case but not in the Warwick one? Titles that were once substantive titles (like the baronies of Rich and Wodehouse) and then became subsidiary ones still redirect to the article on the higher title.

Choess, it would be good if you could explain your proposal a bit further, with a few examples perhaps. Tryde (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tryde:My preference would be to have one page for each title, to save any messing around, but I can appreciate that it is logical to combine pages sometimes when they don’t have much to say (like the Audley page).

In the Wodehouse/Kimberley case the titles involved were only created once and remained within the one family; so even though the subsidiary-title guideline would have them on separate pages, I can concede that it is logical to have them all on the same page; and if you had actually proposed a merge on that basis I wouldn’t have argued. That isn’t the case with Earl of Warwick; there were four separate creations of that title, all with different antecedents. In that case it’s more logical to just have the Warwick titles on the page, with an Other titles: link to the subsidiary pages, as at Duke of Bedford (1414), (1470) and (1485).Swanny18 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Swanny18, the system I'm advocating is the system that has been in place for about eight years here. I have always been under the impression that others have seen it as a good and logical system and I can't remember anyone objecting to it before. The Peerage is in fact very well documented on Wikipedia and Wikipedia is a phenomenal source for anyone interested in this part of British history. We can keep the Baron Rich article as an exception and as a monument to you on Wikipedia. There is no point in continuing this discussion any further. Tryde (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think your interpretation of the system is slightly at variance with what it actually says. And if we keep B Rich (and B Brooke, and the original layout of EoW) it should be keep because they follow the rule, not because they are exceptions. So if I need a "monument" from you maybe it should be that you follow the guidelines we actually have, rather than the ones you think we have. Swanny18 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Murdoch query

[3] Kittybrewster ☎ 12:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Earl of Warwick

Following on from the discussion above. I tried to make some improvements to this article with the intention that it would be easier for the reader to understand it. I would like some views from other members of the project on the changes. What I did was to include the lists of title holders in the section where the history and descent of the title are explained. The lists of titleholders were previously located at the bottom of the page - with no direct connection to the history sections above. My intention was then for the subsidiary titles Baron Brooke and Baron Rich to redirect to these specific sections instead of to the article in general. This is not a system usually used but I thought it would be appropriate in this case as the article was hard to understand with the previous layout. I also included the full family history in the articles - instead of this being split between two articles (for instance the history of the Rich family and their titles were split between the Baron Rich and Earl of Warwick articles). Some improvements to the descent of the titles and other members of the families were also made. Would be good to get some views on this. Tryde (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This was under discussion here and here, but if you want to talk about it here instead, that’s fine. The counter-proposal was to leave Baron Rich, Baron Brooke, and the layout of the Earl of Warwick page alone, trim the extraneous material at EoW and put in a couple of "Other title" tags at EoW (1618) and (1759). Simpler, less disruptive, more conventional and follows the guidelines. Swanny18 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion - I think it's reasonable for Baron Rich to have its own article, as otherwise a link to "Baron Rich" from Richard Rich, 1st Baron Rich will end up going to Earl of Warwick, which didn't exist while Richard Rich was alive. That for me is confusing and violates the principle of least astonishment. I'm admittedly new to the topic of the peerage on WP, but that's how I would approach the matter from a general linking perspective. If Baron Rich ends up being a short article that duplicates part of Earl of Warwick, no big deal, bytes and hyperlinks are cheap.

Having looked about it, I feel the same applies to Baron Wodehouse and both John Wodehouse, 1st Baron Wodehouse and John Wodehouse, 2nd Baron Wodehouse (neither of which currently have a link to the title). — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that if the titles have ever been separate then the subsidiary titles need their own entry. Only where all the holders of both titles are the same should they be at a single article.Garlicplanting (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been quiet for a while now.
The question posed was whether to keep the recent changes to the Earl of Warwick article (the unorthodox layout, adding detail from the Baron Rich and Baron Brooke pages and reducing those pages down to redirects); the alternative was to return to the original layout and keep the subsidiary articles intact.
The consensus appears to be to return to the original arrangements; is that a fair assessment? If so, I will restore the situation next time I'm here. Swanny18 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The system used in the Kimberley and Warwick articles is according to the guidelines and according to the established praxis for peerage articles used since 2004 on Wikipedia. This system is used for thousands of peerage articles and has never been challenged before. The Baron Rich was kept as an exception to this rule to appease User:Swanny18. As for the Earl of Warwick article - User:Swanny18 complained that the article was cluttered using the traditional layout - I agreed on this and changed the layout so that it would be easier for the reader - Swanny18 objected to this change as it did not follow the traditional layout... It is clear that this user is here only to wind me up. The Earl of Warwick article works well now - we should leave it as it is. I would then like to move on from this discussion and return to editing constructively. Tryde (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you seen to be in a minority of one on this; but I’m happy to wait a day or so to see if your position attracts any support. If not, I’ll go ahead. Then, if you intend to edit war on the subject, we can take it from there.

And as for me only doing this to wind you up, I think you need to re-evaluate your importance in the scheme of things; I’ve got better things to do too. Swanny18 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have the support of User:Hex, who admits that he or she is new to the topic of peerage articles and User:Garlicplanting who (although apparently very knowledgeable on the subject) has never edited a peerage article on Wikipedia. Not that this matters a great deal on Wikipedia. What I'm trying to do is defend the guidelines and the praxis used since 2004. I have already agreed that Baron Rich can be a separate article - an exception to the practice used here. The Earl of Warwick article has been thoroughly expanded over the last few weeks and works well - there is no need to change it. Can we please leave this now? Tryde (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don’t know where you get this idea that you are “defending the guidelines and praxis” of the peerage project with this: You have been told by five different people that your merging of the subsidiary title pages was contrary to the guidelines on the subject, As for “praxis”, your layout at Earl of Warwick is unlike just about any other peerage page you care to look at. So your concession that “Baron Rich can be a separate article as an exception to the practice here” rings slightly hollow.

You asked for some views on the changes you made; you got no support for them, and several people (who, despite your sniffyness, are as much entitled to pass an opinion as you) told you (politely) they were wrong.

The pragmatic thing to do at that point would be to drop it; instead, you are still insisting you are right, and everyone else is wrong. So, to answer your last question, we can leave it any time you like. Swanny18 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Beauchamp of Bletso

I raised the issue of the Baron Beauchamp of Bletso page above; I've now opened a discussion on the talk page there if anyone cares to comment. Swanny18 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Earl of Mountrath redirected to Coote baronets

I agreed with Choess when he suggested above "A subsidiary title may be redirected to the principal peerage title if and only if every holder of the principal title since its creation has held the subsidiary title AND vice-versa." However, I see that Tryde has merged Earl of Mountrath, of which title there were seven holders, and which is hardly a "subsidiary title", to Coote baronets, which is not a peerage title, and I am uncomfortable with this. On the talk page Tryde comments that this is "All according to the guidelines where extinct titles redirect to possible junior extant titles", but I am doubtful that that is a fair summary of a guideline. I do wonder where this approach could lead and would much prefer peerage titles not to be merged into pages on baronetcies, especially not into pages about several baronetcies whose holders may or may not be related to each other. Moonraker (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you.45ossington (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines state that "If titles share an article, the article should be at the highest title, except when there is a lesser currently extant title: Duke of Bolton, for instance, should redirect to Marquess of Winchester, since the latter is extant." I understand that this applies to baronetcies as well (it's applied in for instance Baron Magheramorne and Baron Kesteven). This was not a straightforward move and that was why I explained the move in the talk page. The Earl of Mountrath article was very poor - I moved most of the material to Coote baronets (which was also a very poor article) and expanded this article so that it explains the relationship between the baronetcy and the earldom. The reader is now able to follow the descent of the titles in one article - something they weren't able to do in either article before. I also created a separate article for the barony of Castle Coote which was a substantive title after the death of the 7th Earl of Mountrath. I thought this was a good thing but obviously it was not... Perhaps Moonraker and 45ossington can explain how this should be done instead. Tryde (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But, Tryde, that guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage in a section headed Peerage and in a sub-section headed Pages on peerages. In what you quote, every use of "title" must surely mean "peerage title". I don't know where the understanding that "this applies to baronetcies as well" comes from, but I should prefer to clarify that peerage titles cannot be merged into baronetcies. In this case, there were no Cootes in the Irish House of Lords after the death of the last earl. In my view it would be better to keep Earl of Mountrath separate from Coote baronets. Even if it was a "very poor" page, with seven Earls to say something about it can surely be improved. Moonraker (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The intention of the guideline is that the reader should be able to follow the descent of a title in one article and not to be forced to switch between several articles. The guidelines were written when there were hardly any articles on baronetcies but I don't see why this should not apply to baronetcies as well. A baronetcy is a hereditary title and it was very common for a baronet to be elevated to a peerage. What is important here is that the article is accessible and easy to understand for the reader. You say that the information on the Earls of Mountrath can be improved, well, I have just done that, explaining the descent of the titles and the relationship between the different branches of the Coote family, and so on. I don't see what the Irish House of Lords has to do with it - in any case in the Irish House of Lords had been abolished when the last Earl of Mountrath died in 1802. I would still like to see a proposal for how this should be arranged in contrast to the current layout. Tryde (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference between (say) an Earl and a Viscount, or between a Viscount and a Baron, has always been a modest one: both are peers, and elevation from one rank of the peerage to another has never brought about a fundamental alteration in one's legal status. Baronetcies are a completely different species, or even a different genus - purely honorific, with no enshrined role in the legislature. I think that's why I feel instinctively uncomfortable about merging an article about a peerage into an article about a baronetcy.45ossington (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say that I was surprised by this. I would suggest that the article should be a single one devoted to all holders of the Coote baronetcy, some of whose holders were peers and including Baron Castle Coote. The Donnybrooke Baronetcy should be a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it not be better to combine the articles on the Coote baronets (both creations), Baron Castle Coote and the second and third creations of Earl of Bellomont into a single article on the Coote family? Opera hat (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think an article on the family would be good in addition to the peerage articles. A family tree could explain the different branches of the family. We don't have any other articles where peerages are included in a broader "family article". Perhaps the Donnybrooke baronetcy could be included in the Earl of Bellomont article and Coote baronets could then deal with the history of the senior baronetcy and the earldom of Mountrath? Tryde (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

..but wikipedia does have articles where peerages are included in an article on the sole holder. I don't really see the difference. If I get round to creating a Coote family article it can be discussed in a merge proposal. Opera hat (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

45ossington, of course there are differences in the legal status between a peer and a baronet. What we're discussing here is the best way to describe the history and descent of a title. I can't see how the legal status of a title should be of any relevance. Tryde (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Title of article on Baron Neville slain at Towton 29 March 1461

I've asked at the Wikipedia Help Desk about the mechanics of changing the title of an article, specifically this one:

John Neville, 1st Baron Neville de Raby

The only source cited in the article states that this particular individual is Lord Neville, not 1st Baron Neville de Raby, and the other sources I've looked at also indicate that this particular John Neville, who was slain at the Battle of Towton on 29 March 1461, was called to parliament as Baron Neville, not 1st Baron Neville de Raby.

It thus appears that the current title of the article is in error, and the title of the article should be John Neville, Baron Neville. As I mentioned, I've asked at the Help Desk about the mechanics of changing the article's title, but am posting the proposed change here first, and would appreciate any comments concerning the validity of the proposed change. NinaGreen (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The title is strictly correct. "de Raby" is to distingusih him from others of the family with baronies. The summons to Parliament would certainly not include his ordinal 1st. However since the articel on the second baron is by a higher title, nothing is lost by the article being where it is now (without the "1st"). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lady Cynthia Mosley

Lady Cynthia Mosley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not strictly within this project's scope, but would appreciate views on the title of this article. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)y

• As the daughter of a marquess, she was Lady Cynthia Curzon from 1911 (when her father became an earl) until she married. She would retain that form as Sir Oswald's wife. Accordingly the title is probably correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lord Hertford

Currently directs to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford, but I wanted to know the current Lord Hertford, wouldn't it be better to direct it too either the latest in the line or Marquess of Hertford? Govvy (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted the missing capnote. I suspect that I should have used a template for this, but am unsure which. I will comment on the article that you were looking for that it has much to long a list of heirs presumptive. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Henrietta Stanley, Lady Stanley

My mind's gone blank, I can't think what the article title should be for this lady: ODNB entry starts off "Stanley [née Dillon-Lee], Henrietta Maria, Lady Stanley of Alderley (1807–1895), political hostess and campaigner for women's education, ...". I've started off a dab page to distinguish her from Henrietta Stanley, 4th Baroness Strange, but I know I haven't got it right. I want to create an article and then link it from Sutton High School (London), where one of the houses is named after her. She gets a mention in her husband's article at Edward_Stanley,_2nd_Baron_Stanley_of_Alderley#Family but I think merits her own article. I might start work on it anyway, can always move it to the right name. But I'd welcome advise from a peerage geek as to what her article should be called! (Lots of redirects needed, of course, from all the other possibilities). PamD 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley. See Category:British baronesses. Good luck with the article! Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. I've created a stubby article and updated the various provisional links I'd already made! I knew I'd find an expert around here. PamD 11:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm more of an enthusiast than an expert, but I'm glad I could help. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I suspect that the dabpage will be culled, because a dabpage really needs more than two items. Where there are only two, the dab-issue can be detail with by a dab-capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a problem, Henrietta, Lady Stanley of Alderley should not be called Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley because that says she is a Baroness in her own right when she held only a courtesy title because of her spouse! This matters now (Baronesses are much more popular) more than it used to. Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate that she was a suo iure baroness. It only identifies her as a baroness, which she was. The thing is that life peeresses are styled as The Baroness [of] X, while all other baronesses (including hereditary ones) are most often styled as [The] Lady X. Legally, they are all Baroness [of] X. Surtsicna (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to mention that Surtsicna's hard work on the little stub I created has turned it into an interesting article which was on WP:DYK today! Thanks. PamD 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of her! The articles about her daughters - Maude Stanley, Viscountess Amberley, and the Countess of Carlisle - have all recently appeared on the main page. It was time for Lady Stanley's name to be featured as well. Surtsicna (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I return here at the request of Eddaido. Baronesses sui jure are a relatively rare breed. Formally she is a baroness by marriage, and in a legal document she would be so described. In WP, the convention that peers should be known by the highest title achieved has been weakened. I do not think it matters too much where the article is located (assuming it is not a stupid location, PROVIDED a redirect exists from the formally correct form. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Baronets

WP:NCPEER para 4. says "If there is more than one Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronet then add the territorial designation of the baronetcy (e.g. Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Clapton and Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Gray's Inn)." I don't really see that this is necessary if the other Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronet is never going to have an article. See Talk:Sir William Bruce, 1st Baronet, of Balcaskie#Requested move. Opera hat (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

project template for talk pages?

The other wiki projects have a template you put on the talk pages, I see you can attach a bit to bio templates, but what about a template for just WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage? Is there one as I couldn't see one. For example, Marquess of Hertford has no nothing telling editors what Wiki project help support the artcle. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a separate template exists, but you can use {{WikiProject Biography}} with "peerage-work-group=yes" as one of its parameters (and "peerage-priority=low/mid/high" for importance). For an example, see Talk:Duke of Marlborough (title). IgnorantArmies 12:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, how about something simple like?

You could save that to template form? use it as a simple template for the project yes? Govvy (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Francis Russell, Marquess of Tavistock

I'm told here this man had no title and Marquess of Tavistock in his case is only a style. That is not what it says on his personal article.
On Duke of Bedford (where M of Tavistock is redirected) there is this sentence The courtesy title of the Duke of Bedford's eldest son and heir is Marquess of Tavistock almost at the end of the lead. Fair enough.
After the article about Francis Russell, Marquess of Tavistock is upgraded might the info box Dukedom of Bedford (on here) be amended to show
Heir apparent: Henry Russell. *styled* Marquess of Tavistock? (my asterisks to highlight the change)
The same might then be done to all the other many equivalent cases. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is known as a courtesy title. It is what he was usually called, so that the article title is correct. The best solution on the peerage article is for him to be listed after his father but inset. I have done this on some articles, but it has not been systematically done, and probably needs to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I find he does already appear in the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles of Female Peeresses Pages

I noticed that many pages keep the maiden name of a female peeress if she was granted the title, i.e., Catherine Willoughby, 12th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby. Shouldn't this be the standard for all pages, i.e., Violet Herbert, Countess of Powis who was the 16th Baroness Darcy in her own right? She is titled as Lady Violet Ida Evelyn Lane-Fox, 16th Baroness Darcy of Nayth, Countess of Powis on the National Trust site. Debrett's Peerage states in a legal documentation a Baroness in her own right should be addressed as such, The Right Honourable Baroness Mary Jane Berkeley. Her husband is addressed separately. For example, Mr John Smith and The Lady Berkeley/The Baroness Berkeley. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Lady Meg (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue. The convention is that the article should be at the person's formal title. Since she is a countess by marriage and only a baroness suo jure, I suspect that the countess title takes precedence. In a sense it does not too much matter where the article is, as long as redirects exist from the other versions of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Eek, that's a massive howler. A baroness is "The Right Honourable Mary Jane Baroness Berkeley" in legal documents. I'd expect much better than that from Debrett's! Proteus (Talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability of viscount/heir to earldom

David John Francis Malet Vaughan seems to have no claim to notability other than being heir to an earldom. Does that count as notability? PamD 09:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No person is notable merely due to parentage, except heirs to monarchies. The best solution is to merege this article bcak to that for his father (and prune) since his wife and children are also NN. I recommend nominating for WP:AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy titles in succession boxes

If we find two different peers who share a title in a succession box, the method to disambiguate is known: we add the numeral. But what happens if we find two courtesy peers with the same title? For the first time ever I have come across this very (awkward) scenario, with two Viscounts Castlereagh, two generations apart, here. One solution would be to add the person's name and surname before the title, as happens in some article titles, which in this case would result in "Frederick Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh" and the rather long "Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh". To avoid the latter, we might perhaps add just Christian names before the courtesy titles, but I doubt that would be appropriate or consistent with the rest of the system. Any ideas? Waltham, The Duke of 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In that particular case it sounds right. I am changing it to "Frederick, Viscount Castlereagh" and "Charles, Viscount Castlereagh", rather than the full name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lordship of Bowland and William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland

I am not sure whether this is necessarily quite the right place to launch this discussion, since the article on the Lordship of Bowland does not purport to suggest that it is a peerage title. But I have concerns about the notability (indeed, the reality) of these two articles. Does the pseudonymous bearer of what is (at most) apparently some kind of manorial title merit an article? And is WP:NOTYOU applicable? The Lordship of Bowland has now been embedded into a number of other articles, but did (for example) the Dukes of Buccleuch either know or care that they were "Lords of Bowland"?45ossington (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ossington, I think you underestimate the importance of this lordship on three counts. Firstly, if you visit www.forestofbowland.com/lordship you can see that Lancashire County Council and their officers in the Forest of Bowland promote the lordship as a plank in their promotional/management strategy for the Forest. The Lord of Bowland has appointed a high-profile local landowner as his Bowbearer and the former steward to Lord Clitheroe and Sir Simon Towneley as his chief steward of the Forest. Monies are being raised for good causes and there are strong links to the local Slaidburn Archive. This Lordship is anchored firmly in its local community. Secondly, a scholarly monograph on the Lordship was published by the Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society in 2010. This piece of research was co-authored by a Cambridge don and a local Bowland historian and sets out in detail the long and fascinating history of this lordship. A PDF version of the monograph can be found at www.forestofbowland.com/lordship. Thirdly, you question whether or not the Buccleuchs cared about the lordship of Bowland. The answer is a definitive YES. The Dukes needed to appoint Bowbearers, Chief Stewards and officers in their Forest Courts (swainmote and woodmote) to effect the day-to-day business in their Forest. There is documentary evidence - again cited in the monograph - showing how up until the early C19th the Buccleuchs played an active, inded personal role in such appointments. After the acquisition of the Forest by the Towneley family, the Forest courts did fall into disuse but there was a Bowbearer right up until the late C19th. These two articles whose validity you query make no claim to this Lordship being anything other than feudal/manorial but I think it would be misguided to make assumptions about this historic lordship because it is not a peerage and therefore in some sense not "real". It is very real and I would argue important. If you have any doubt, talk to Jenny Bradley at the Slaidburn Archive or Tony Kitto at Towneley Hall and see how they respond to your suggestion that this Lordship is not "real"! Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Manorial Manorial (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But are (1) User:Manorial, (2) Stephen Jolly and (3) William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland all really one and the same person? If so, wouldn't it be better (a) to record Stephen Jolly's (no doubt important) manorial rights as part of his article (rather than to create a fictional persona with a separate article), and (b) for the content of any article on Stephen Jolly to be determined in the future by editors other than User:Manorial? I'm not saying that Stephen Jolly does not merit an article (any Fellow of a Cambridge College would pass the notability test, in my book), but see WP:NOTYOU). I'm conscious I may be straying rather off-topic for this page and any (polite) suggestion for an alternative location for the discussion would be gratefully received. 45ossington (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I can see a succession box on William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland which gives the impression this is a peerage it looks like it has crossed into our area. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The lordship of Bowland is an empty title, which seems to have been sold by a landed estate that once owned land there. Being lord of the manor confers no great dignity: it is NOT a peerage; I have therefore deleted the succession box. We have had a lot of pushing of this subject in WP, probably all by the man who bought the title, and wants to pretend that it confers some dignity, but that is totally spurious. The Cambridge don may merit an article; not all do. I would be happy to see the article on the 16th lord deleted, personally. If he is Stephen Jolly, a brief summary might be merged to his article, but we would need to be very sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A peer's wife's son is?

Robert Finlay, 1st Viscount Finlay was married to Mary, daughter of Cosmo Innes. A Mary, daughter the same, had a son W. K. Burton. Does that make him a listable peer? trespassers william (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The 1916 barony and 1919 viscountcy were conferred on the grantee "and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten". See "No. 29870". The London Gazette. 19 December 1916. and "No. 31271". The London Gazette. 4 April 1919. Opera hat (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article on Burton says that he was the son of Katherine, daughter of Cosmo Innes, so he would appear to be a nephew, not a step-son, of Lord Finlay. Either way, he was not a peer. john k (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Territorial designations yet again

Please see C. P. Snow and Talk:C. P. Snow. An editor is asserting the use of the territorial designation in the article lede on the basis that it is "the correct formal usage given by Debrett". Opinions are welcome. Sam Blacketer (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Roll of the Peerage

If a person is not on this list, are they not a peer? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester it has been suggested that as Alexander Montagu is not on the roll, he is not Duke of Manchester. Does that mean that there is no current holder of the title? Hack (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To quote from the College of Arms website, "Under the terms of the Royal Warrant of 1 June 2004 any person who succeeds to a Peerage must prove his or her succession and be placed on the Roll, otherwise that person may not be legally recognised as a Peer in official documents." Logically, therefore, a person who does not prove his or her succession "succeeds to a Peerage", i.e., is a Peer, but "may not be legally recognised as a Peer in official documents". So, 1) Manchester is a peer and 2) if he ever appears in the Gazette, it will be as "Alexander Montagu". In practice, many baronets and peers never trouble themselves to become enrolled on their respective Rolls, whether for financial or social reasons I'm not certain. Works of reference such as Burke's and Debrett's (both of which Yopie has noted in the AfD) are, in practice, more comprehensive and would determine whether someone is socially recognized as a peer. Choess (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Have the provisions to disclaim peerages in the Peerage Act 1963 been repealed? I seem to recall that prior to that Act Tony Benn tried to duck out of his peerage by refusing to apply for a writ of summons but it was clarified that he was a peer no matter what he did or didn't. The 1963 Act introduced an active process to get out a peerage and even after the 1999 Act at least one peer used it. Has the creation of the Roll of the Peerage transformed everything so that one is only a peer if one actively pursues the claim or are people reading more into it than is actually there? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Peerage succession is a matter of law and this is not alterable by a warrant - which does not in any case purport to make any legal change.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If the person eligible to be the 13th duke didn't claim the title, would an heir making a claim after his death be the 13th or 14th duke? Hack (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

14th. There are good precedents for this: there have been various (pre-1999) cases where a peerage was not claimed immediately after the death of a peer, only to be successfully claimed by a distant relation after more than one generation. In these cases, the previous generations have been retrospectively recognized as de jure peers, even though they did not use the title in their lifetimes. See Earl of Crawford for one example. Choess (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think paragraph 3 of the 2004 Royal Warrant establishing the Roll of the Peerage makes this clear: to paraphrase, it says that a Peer who is not entered on the Roll is not entitled to the precedence attached to their Peerage, and is not entitled to be addressed or referred to in any official document by any title attaching to their Peerage.[4]

A person who has inherited a peerage clearly has the right to be entered on the Roll - they are a peer - but are not entitled to be officially recognised as such until they do so. -- Theramin (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've taken the decision to delete the article about Alexander Montagu but am here to ask for your assistance in tidying up redirects and determining how Wikipedia will deal with those who do not feature of the Roll of the Peerage, I note when cleaning up redirects, Alexander Montagu appears in various articles (primarily other Dukes) because of his position in the order of precedence, but reading the above, that order of precedence may be altered because of Alexander not registering. I don't want to go and make anything worse or create too large a cleanup, so I'm here asking for assistance and input. Thanks in advance folks. Nick (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick leave the precedence boxes alone its just not worth the effort. The warrant/roll was/is just some administrative housekeeping to deal with removal of most hereditary peers from the Lords and consequently their not having a visible recognition of their succession as they previously did via taking their seats and to provide a formal list of peers capable of taking part in elections to the Lords. However many peers before '99 never took their seats and no one questioned their succession as the many peerage resources (burkes/debretts) all keep records. For all practical purposes the roll is irrelevant to 99.9% of successions. It may be the case in the future that where some very distant succession occurs or paternity questions arise and there is a real question as to the succession that the roll may have a use but thats a bridge we can cross. Removing peers from our succession boxes etc just because they are not on the roll will make wiki look absurd. (As long as burkes/debrettes etc have them as peers we need not worry) Garlicplanting (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's still unclear whether the Roll of the Peerage defines whether someone is a duke or not. It defines whether they're to be recognised officially as one, but they have inherited some status (what?) before this. There's an unclear interregnum between being heir apparent, the death of their predecessor, accepting the title and finally being added to the Roll. Burke's and Debrett's already recognise Alexander Montagu as the 13th duke (although these have been conveniently blanked from the article as non-RS primary sources(!) ). Montagu has used the title personally. No-one else can claim to be the Duke of Manchester whilst Alexander Montagu still lives.

So if he's not a duke, what is he? If he's not the Duke, who is? – it's not an extinct title. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to the bottom of what he should be called, hoping to get a message to the man himself via a fellow administrator who has been in touch for some pointers. I'm also uncertain if he previously was on the Roll and removed himself (and if that's even possible) or whether Debrett's and Burke's have either jumped the gun on this or are simply out dated. I would expect this could be the first Duke to not register on the Roll and there could have been an assumption he would register, but I'll attempt to find out. Nick (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's not. Neither Argyll (who certainly uses his title) and Atholl, from the Scottish peerage, are on the Roll. Abercorn is on the roll, but only as a Marquess, having apparently proved succession to the marquessate but not to his Irish dukedom. (This suggests a certain level of red tape involved in the whole thing.) Debrett's and Burke's haven't jumped the gun or become outdated; Manchester and the others named are still Dukes and socially recognized as such, they just can't exercise some of the privileges of peerage (like standing for election in the HoL) until they get themselves enrolled. All the bluster about the Roll and those manuals being non-RS is basically birtherism on Hex's part to achieve his objectives for the article. (FWIW, I agree with your close; I'd have leaned more towards inclusion, but Wikihistorically, only pre-1999 peers have enjoyed the presumption of notability as members of a national legislature; while it's a widely held opinion, no one's ever established consensus that possession of a peerage alone can be presumed to confer notability.) Again, based on my experience with the Roll of the Baronetage, it's really the third-party manuals that the world at large consults to determine whether someone is a peer or a baronet; the language of the Royal Warrant about these being "complete" rolls is wishful thinking. Choess (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Choess, the Abercorn issue is almost certainly due not to red tape proving the title at all but to the origins of the roll. Originally peers sitting in parliament needed only to demonstrate their rights in relation to the peerage(s) in which they sat in the house. Irish peerages not granting a right to sit were not an issue for roll which was an internal document of members. A quick look at the roll will find other examples of the same type. However as an examination of Hansard (the official record of the house) will quickly show the Duke was referred to in the house as such and their was no question as to his title.[5] Garlicplanting (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Project banner for talk pages

I think a project banner template would be helpful. It could be placed at the top of article talk pages to identify this WikiProject as the project supporting the tagged article, and it could play a role in article assessment (assuming of course that this WikiProject is interested in assessing related articles for measurable improvement). An example of what I have in mind can be found at Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. I see someone already raised the question at /Archive 10#project template for talk pages?, but it looks like the issue was left unresolved without any consensus for or against creating a template. If members of this project are interested and would use it, a template can be created without too much trouble. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is already satisfied by the existence of the "peerage-work-group" parameter in the WikiProject Biography template. Choess (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it is in cases like duke, earl, count, viscount, baron, etc. These are not biographies, but they are peerage/noble titles. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Shall we just apply the Biography template (using the peerage work group parameter) on these non-biographical peerage articles? I'm not entirely opposed to doing that if there is at least some consensus against removing them on grounds that the articles are not biographical. Or if anyone is interested in creating a simple banner for this project, there is a meta-template for this at {{WPBannerMeta}}. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Succession boxes without peerage?

What's the point of having succession boxes if the most important "office", that of peerage(s), is arbitrarily removed because the peerage(s) became extinct after the death of the holder (to be revived later in a new creation)? [6] Either we have such boxes or we don't. Complete removal would probably regarded as vandalism? Buchraeumer (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case you linked, it looks to me like the removal was the result of an overly narrow interpretation of "succession". Just because someone was not immediately succeeded in a peerage title does not mean they did not hold the title or that the title was not, theoretically, hereditary. We've seen many such titles dissolved and recreated over the years, some of them several times. I would support inclusion of these, regardless of succession. If there was no immediate successor (or predecessor), then that information too is important to readers. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A succession box for a title that had a single holder is pointless, but if there was a predecessor, it will be useful. IN the case of Leicester, we have an enormous succession box, and the omission of his peerage is clearly inappropriate. However the holder under next creation is not a successor, but a note might be added covering this. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do have an enormous succession box in the article about Leicester. How does that make it inappropriate to remove an admittedly pointless succession box? If anything, it should make it desirable. He neither succeeded nor preceded someone as Earl of Leicester. There is no succession there. Holders of other creations have never been taken into consideration, and for a good reason. The point of having succession boxes is not to list all of one's offices. That should be covered in the article body. The point of having succession boxes is to provide the names of one's predecessors and successors, because they are often not found in the article body. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Politely venture to disagree. Showing that a person had no successor in a particular office or position—that it was allowed to lapse—is, IMO, information worthy of communication. I realize that to some extent one's position on this will be a matter of taste. Choess (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Choess. You often find extinct peerages recreated - sometimes amongst the immediate family. Having the box there which allows a simple click to the peerage title page to find any previous or subsequent creations is I find rather helpful. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said that not having a successor makes a succession box pointless. Not having a predecessor + not having a successor is what makes a succession box pointless, as there is no succession. A link to the article about the peerage title can (and should) be in the article body. Succession boxes are not a collection of links. They are supposed to illustrate successions, aren't they? Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In WP:Succession box#Overview, the project page, it says about the advantages of succession boxes: "Firstly, they offer an overview of a person's career through the titles said person has held throughout their life. Secondly, they gather and categorise all of the person's official titles in a form easy to understand, and in an order different from the one provided by the article itself. Thirdly, they offer dynastic information about monarchs, information which is usually not given in their articles. There are also several advantages of succession boxes that are not limited to the individual articles: they offer readers the ability to follow a chain of succession, clicking their way from incumbent to incumbent, or to go straight to the article of the title, where they should be able to find a list of all of the title's holders; also, they can better illustrate cases of a change in a title's name, joined offices having passed down from/to the same person, and cases where a person has held an office multiple times." (I hadn't found that page yesterday). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think what I said may not have been clear. We do not usually record re-creations in succ-boxes, though it could be done and would be useful where the title was re-created for a close relative. I was querying whehter it was useful to have a succession box for a peerage granted to (say) a childless civil servant at the end of his career; perhaps we should to show that the title died with him. In Leicester's case, since he was known as Leicester for most of him political career, it is highly desirable that the peerage should be included in the succ-box. However, I doubt that it is useful to include a line for Baron Denbigh, a subsidiary title probably given so that a son would have a courtesy title to use. In thery, this was probably given the day before the earldom, but that is mere procedural semantics. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Denbigh wouldn't be included under our present policy precisely because subsidiary titles with the same decent don't need separating. Had the title existed before or after the earldom that would be another matter Garlicplanting (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughts and for clarification! Buchraeumer (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect the naming conventions of this WikiProject. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fisher

We're having the usual problems with people not understanding peerage titles again. See John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher and Baron_Fisher where the've been adding 'of Kilverstone'. I've corrected it once but we have the usual 'books and newspapers' evidential arguments. Hansard of course gets the title correct and has the entries up to the expulsion of the hereditaries in 99 [[7]] Garlicplanting (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Title/style confusion help

I don't know how to deal with this one: Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber#Title/style confusion DBD 23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Marquess" versus "Marquis"

The guidelines claim that '"Marquess" should always be used, never "Marquis", for the British rank.' This is simply wrong. The Manners family, for example, always use the spelling Marquis for the Marquis of Granby, the title given to the eldest son of the Duke of Rutland. Here is a page from a book written by the Duchess of Rutland herself, mother of the current Marquis of Granby, which spells the title "Marquis". I really don't think you can get more definitive than that as to how it should be spelled. The current entry on the "Marquess" of Granby is therefore completely wrong in using the spelling not used by the holder of the title himself. In addition, Scottish holders of the title always use the spelling "Marquis". Wikipedia should not, and cannot, dictate to other people what spellings they use for their own names and titles. Zythophile (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Brendandh (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I also support this change. Perhaps the guidance should require that either "Marquess" or "Marquis" can be used but no other spellings. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's an absurd position because various peers at various times have used various spellings. We can't have an encyclopaedia chopping and changing erratically. Parliament and the roll of the peerage use the one form Marquess. That ought to be sufficient authority to govern/standardise UK use. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Duke of Rutland is able to style his son whatever he wants, whether Wikipedia agrees or not. We really aren't "dictating to other people what spellings they use for their own names and titles" just because Wikipedia is not addressed to the Duke of Rutland. Moreover, the Roll of the Peerage lists him as Marquess, so everything else is irrelevant. If they're not offended by the official roll of the Peerage, then they won't be offended by a Wikipedia article.

Cheers--The Theosophist (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines don't claim anything, they instruct users what version to use. That is, we're not saying that "marquis" is never used, merely that it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia in the interests of standardisation. And I agree with The Theosophist - Wikipedia is not telling people what to call themselves, it is merely recording information. And if, as you've pointed out, the spelling of this title varies from title to title (and I suspect in many cases it has varied from holder to holder, along with prevailing spelling conventions), it would be very messy for us to vary our spellings of titles as a result of personal preferences on the part of the peer concerned. As an aside, for a long period "duchess" was often spelled "dutchess" - I've never heard any argument that we should use that spelling for duchesses who used it themselves, and I suspect everyone would agree it would be absurd to do so. Proteus (Talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could anyone have a look at this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington

As a Kennedy the article keeps getting requests to rename and move the article Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington to add "Kennedy" in somewhere. Not an expert on article naming so anybody who can give guidance on the article talk page appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the issue isn't about adding "Kennedy" (which I think should be inserted between "Kathleen" and "Cavendish"), but about deleting "Marchioness of Hartington" which, having been her correct style as well as the way in which she was known after her marriage and at the time of her death, should remain in the article title. FactStraight (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no objection to the article being renamed "Kathleen Kennedy", if that is what reliable sources mostly call her. I know that American women have a habit of stringing their past and present surnames together, and good luck to them, but that is still quite alien to the British, and in my view this lady should be called either by her name before she was married or by her married name. A confusion of surnames should surely not be built into a name which includes a courtesy title. After her marriage, Kathleen Kennedy's name was her husband's. In society, she was "Kathleen Hartington", and to a reference work her name was "Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington". Her name did not change when her husband died. Moonraker (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Kathleen Kennedy is a dabpage. This lady's main claim to fame is an inherited notability, from her father, brothers and husband. Kathleen Kennedy is a likely search term for her, but will lead to the dabpage. I cannot think of any other disambiguator that is likely to be useful as a search term. If the name was not already in use, I would suggest creating it as a redirect, but we cannot do that, and moving the dabpage to make way for a redirect seems unjust to the other three ladies. We do occasionally have a hat note: "Kathleen Kennedy redirects her for other persons see KK (disambiguation), but I doubt she is sufficiently notable for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir William Vero Read

Hello. I'm looking for a baronetage that doesn't seem to exist and I'm wondering if anyone here can add anything. The person in question is "Sir William Vero Read, 10th Bt" (1839-1922), who (as well as his son) was referred to as a baronet several times in the Australian press, yet I can find nothing on any baronetcy he might belong to. This says the baronetcy was created in 1641. Frickeg (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the Reade baronetcy, of Brocket Hall (extinct 1712) was claimed in 1810 by his ancestor, on the basis of fictitious documents. See this record. Choess (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Frickeg (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Flaming Ferrari has been very busy proposing a large number of page deletions of peers and courtesy peers, and a few baronets, on the grounds of non-notability. He seems especially interested in Earls and Marquesses. See links below to some of these. The idea seems to be that peers not in the House of Lords are inherently non-notable. Frankly, the articles for some of those nominated give no sign of notability at all, but it still seems to me that even a peer has only to meet the GNG of WP:N, and that for now many if not most peers who are outside the House of Lords can probably still do that. What do others think? Moonraker (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hay, 14th Marquess of Tweeddale
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Cunliffe-Lister, 3rd Earl of Swinton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward, 5th Earl of Dudley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conroy Ryder, 8th Earl of Harrowby
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Lowther, 8th Earl of Lonsdale
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Pery, 7th Earl of Limerick
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Charles Lyttelton, 12th Viscount Cobham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Grant, 12th Countess of Dysart
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 11th Earl of Shaftesbury
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Smith, 5th Viscount Hambleden
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles James Buchanan, 4th Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Malcolm Colquhoun, 9th Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Geoffrey Cory-Wright, 3rd Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Richard Cory-Wright, 4th Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Walter Halsey, 2nd Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Halsey (priest)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir David O'Grady Roche, 5th Baronet

The rationale seems to rest on the fallacy that because post-1999 UK peers are not automatically presumed to be notable (we have a guideline, don't ask me where, that says members of national legislatures are presumed to be notable), they must therefore be non-notable.

In general, the lives of hereditary peers (even Belloc's Lord Heygate) are somewhat better documented than those of the untitled. (Whether this state of affairs is socially rational is a question beyond Wikipedia's remit.) We might do well to consider whether being documented in those sources (e.g., Burke's, Debrett's, Who's Who) constitutes "significant coverage" under the general notability guideline. Some of this material is sourced off of the web, and while it's likely to be accurate, it would be better to have it checked against those sources. Choess (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing I have pointed out in my !vote on a number of these is that there is usefulness to the reader in having a complete set of articles on hereditary peers (I think the same of the baronets) even if some of them are less notable than others. Unless there are specific BLP issues that make these articles difficult to responsibly maintain, they are doing some good but causing no harm.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite silly. By right of their offices, the ARE notable, even if they were not personally notable individuals. Further, deleting these may break chains that link notable great-granparents and their notable progeny down the line. WP austerity measures, the recession really can't be that bad??? :)Brendandh (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Those in the House of Lords are notable by right of their office, the others only have the title although many are notable. An article consisting of the names and dates of birth of a low profile individual and members of their family isn't in compliance with BLP policy - information such as that would normally be removed from any other article - and if that's all there is a redirect to the title should be enough. A complete set of articles about various topics (churches, bus operating companies, councillors etc.) would be useful, but those that don't meet notability are deleted or redirected. A set of articles about people who are predominantly male, white, and overprivileged shouldn't be an exception. Peter James (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Peter James here, and disagree with Jimbo Wales. I don't believe hereditary peers (post House of Lords reform) and baronets should automatically warrant their own article, unless they qualify as notable for some other reason. 109.156.48.31 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating a lot of almost-empty pages with some trivia and some gossip is not useful at all. Also there's a strong Englishcentrism because applying the same criteria to other countries will bring to have about a horrible amount of crappy pages. For the sake of completeness a table is the best solution. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What other countries have hereditary peers? Well, there are nobilities surviving in various republics in Europe, and in Spain, Denmark, etc but it's not the same equation as in the UK where the peers were/are part of government still (though not all of them now sounds like). Makes me wonder if all Canadian senators (the Senate is the equivalent of the House of Lords in Canada, though by appointment, not hereditary); maybe because for the most part they all had notable political careers beforehand, or in some cases media and other careers (rather infamously if you know about the Senate scandal recently). Some Canadian MP and Senator articles are very brief btw, some barely more than stubs. I agree that trivia and gossip should not be on a bio, particularly a BLP one though; whether hereditary peers qualify for articles on that basis alone I can't say, but I do know that there's lots of historical peers whose mentions on various dab pages and in various articles of this or that kind are redlinked.Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty about this debate is that it tends to degenerate into political/social controversy between those who approve and those who disapprove of the hereditary peerage (eg: "A set of articles about people who are predominantly male, white, and overprivileged shouldn't be an exception"). The truth is that there are still plenty of people who are interested in who the present Earl of Blandings is - even if they shouldn't be, and (as an inclusionist) I think Wikipedia should cater for them. And, to echo Jimbo Wales, what harm do the articles do?45ossington (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just gone through each of the articles listed above adding my "keep", but it doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of conducting the debate. Is there any way of ensuring that this is discussed and determined as a general issue, so that individual articles (perhaps overlooked) are not deleted piecemeal without proper consideration?45ossington (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The only political argument seems, matter of fact, yours: we are simply dealing with a bunch of pages with no truly relevant informations but simply some trivia. Peerage in UK has no longer a true political role. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The hereditary peerage still has a political role in being able to elect a representative number to the Lords, plus they still have at least nominal right of access to the sovereign, privy council, trial by peers. They still have a constitutional role. The baronets might not have a constitutional standing, but they are still given extraordinary social standing in a longstanding and well-regulated system of honours and precedence, besides which the baronets nominated for deletion all seem to be quite active (JPs, county lieutenancies and other ceremonial offices, high military ranks, chairmanships of corporations, etc.). Then there's the fact, articulated by Lawrence Stone, that we don't have too much information on the aristocracy, but too little, the main focus of sociological research being concentrated on the peasantry, gentry and merchants.Dhtwiki (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Harris (politician) - more notable than many of these, but more likely to be deleted. Peter James (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I eventually stumbled across this discussion after noticing a link in an article I had been working on had changed colour as it is one of the AfDs above. I haven't checked all of the above articles but I feel most will likely meet WP:N and should be retained (and fleshed out). The existence of the articles may help give context to several country house/castle/large estates (especially when connected to Historic Scotland Category A listed buildings) - many of these people are, after all, the "landed gentry". (Sorry, Peter, but I do feel several of these are far more notable than - in my opinion, very minor - politician you mention above). SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much good faith I have in the list of deletions. It seems to have been made solely on them being post '99 peers with no engagement as to any links or details in the articles themselves. Quickly scanning those articles many have sufficient press links others have local elected office or public/state appointments. If there are issues they ought to be discussed on an article by article basis not mass deletion proposals.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am glad to see that all these are individual AFDs not PRODs. Even before 1999, many peers never attended the House of Lords. I met one, probably essentially a farmer, who clearly regarded being installed in the House of Lords and making a maiden speech as a right of passage. I fear that many peers are indeed NN, particualrly where their landed estates have been sold, either as a result of improvidence or to pay death duties. In other cases, the estate has passed to a daughter or sister and the title to a distant male heir. Those who own great mansions that are regularly open to the public are probably notable for that; likewise those with great landed estates, but for the rest, notability needs to be established by the normnal criteria, with holding a title being one element in that. I have commented specifically on one AFD, where I beleive that there is some notability, and may do so for others. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some further recent AfD requests in similar vein to the above:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Lyonel Tollemache, 4th Baronet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart

KenBailey (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Post-nominals#RfC: Size of post-nominals in this template

Input requested. Should the default size of post-nominal letters set by this template remain at 85% or be increased to 100%? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kt

Can someone assist. See Digby Jones, Baron Jones of Birmingham Editor has developed the fanciful practice of adding kt after peers to indicate their were/are knights bachelor. Despite this not being in the official or authorised postnominal from the UK crown/government. I don't want to breach the 3RR but its complete cobblers and needs undoing. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I presume I am the fanciful editor. As a peers title comes first in precedence, the title Sir isn't used. Therefore, there is no other way of showing the honour of Knight Bachelor (Kt) but through post-nominal letters. Kt isn't used by non-peers because the title of Sir with no accompanying post-nominal letters shows they are a Knight Bachelor. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The title of "Sir" is used when giving peers' full names if the peer is also a knight or baronet - see e.g. Burke's Peerage, a fairly reputable source I would have thought. For some reason it seems Wikipedia sees fit to do otherwise. But "Kt" as a postnominal hasn't been used since the nineteenth century, and shouldn't be re-introduced now. Opera hat (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Garlicplanting has pointed out to me that "Sir" is not used for peers, even in official documents. Opera hat (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought it better to bring the matter up here as this is the relevant project. Knights don't use Kt as Opera hat indicates its been long abandoned (its written in full for knights on certain legal documents) and is not on the present list of authorised post nominals by the crown (London Gazette October 1964). Which is why government departments do not use Kt, including those departments that have/had peers who are knights bachelor and No 10 does not use Kt nor indeed does Parliament. Now if you can cite a better authority than the crown/government and parliament (or them all formally using peerage + Kt.) I'm happy to hear though I'm not sure what it could be Garlicplanting (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Kt is an abbreviation for knight, just as bart is for baronet. It may be used in some published lists to indicate what right a person has to be "Sir". If a person has a life peerage, that trumps the knighthood, but to call him knight in the lead, will just be clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Barons Neville de Raby

I have been adding sources to Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland#Ancestry and I have come across a problem:

• The ODNB source for: Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland states he is the "eldest son of John Neville, fifth Baron Neville (c.1330–1388), and Maud (d. 1378/9), daughter of Henry, second Lord Percy of Alnwick."
• ODNB Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland "he married Margaret (d. 1372), widow of William, Lord Ros of Helmsley, and daughter of Ralph Neville, fourth Lord Neville of Raby."

The ODNB articles are written by two different authors, but they must be singing from a different hymn sheet from Wikipedia. They have "fifth Baron Neville (c.1330–1388)" and "fourth Lord Neville of Raby (c.1291–1367)." Wikipedia has John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville de Raby (c.1337 – 17 October 1388) and Ralph Neville, 2nd Baron Neville de Raby (c.1291 – 5 August 1367). Presumably the same men but with different numbering. See also the page Baron Neville de Raby which is based on rayment N1.

At first I was going to renumber the pages, but then I came across:

• Lundy, Darryl. "John de Neville, 3rd Lord Neville". thePeerage.com. p. 350 § 3492.

in the John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville de Raby articles and while Lundy is not a Wikipedia reliable source he cites:

• Mosley, Charles, ed. (1999). Burke's Peerage and Baronetage. Vol. 1 (106th edition, 2 volumes ed.). Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage. p. 14.

Which is a reliable source and supports Rayment's numbering. So any thoughts on how to square this circle? -- PBS (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd check the Complete Peerage - Burke's isn't always the best source for information on medieval peers. Check http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ also. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the "1st" baron (by the ODNB numbering) was a baron by tenure—like other barons of the time, he held the title by rendering military service to the King. These barons were called to the King's council by a writ of summons. Eventually, this became a hereditary privilege—a man could demand a writ of summons on the grounds that his ancestors had been so summoned. Barony by tenure was eventually done away with entirely.

The numbers assigned to hereditary peers don't have legal standing, as far as I know; they're essentially for disambiguation, used when it became important to compile lists of hereditary peers. (The earliest use I can find in a hurry is an early Tudor enumeration of the Earls of Northumberland.) The usual convention in peerage reference works in these cases seems to be that the first individual for whom a writ of summons survives becomes the first baron, hence our numbering scheme (and Burke's). The ODNB's numbering system seems to have carried over from the DNB. Choess (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking quickly this looks like he was summoned as Baron Neville (1295) certainly parliament seems to use that form - this was during the period when peers used titles very freely so all sorts of variants will exist. (Ed - just for clarity Choess's comment is only true if the person summoned actually sat in the parliament. A number of present peers have ancestors summoned who failed to attend and their titles are so dated see Grey (of Codnor).Garlicplanting (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK then it seems from this conversation that the best thing to do is to leave the articles under their current names, but to add footnotes to them and to the Baron Neville article that the ODNB numbers the barons differently with citations to the two relevant ODNB articles. Any more observations? PBS (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the best solution is to stick to the numbering used in article Baron Neville de Raby: WP should be self-consistent. I expect the different numbering comes from counting feudal Barons (barons by tenure), but WP has consistently counted from a "creation", in this period usually by writ of summons. I suspect that this is to some extent an artifact of later periods (but that is my OR/POV). We need to stick to the accepted rules. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How many of us live in or near London?

At the Wikimedia Foundation board meeting we've been discussing user groups - see: Wikimedia user groups. I was thinking that it might be fun to start a user group for Wikiproject Peerage and Baronetage. The idea is just to have a monthly or quarterly meetup and asking historians or peers/baronets with interesting family histories to come and talk to us, and to have face-to-face planning sessions to think about what broad tasks we might set for ourselves. And just to enjoy meeting people with similar interests.

This really only works if it turns out that we have say 5-10 people who live close to each other and who would have some interest in this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article titles for wives of politicians ennobled in retirement

This issue is coming up with Talk:Clarissa Eden, Countess of Avon#Requested move and contribution from here would be useful for one of the harder cases. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lord Gilford? re HMS Tribune

See Gilford Island and Tribune Channel, which are related to HMS Tribune (1853), commanded by a Lord Gilford when it was assigned to the Pacific Station of the RN at Esquimalt. I see nothing on Gilford (disambiguation) and nothing related to the RN on the Earl of Guildford page.Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See Earl of Clanwilliam.45ossington (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean this line "He was succeeded by his eldest son, the fourth Earl. He was an Admiral of the Fleet"? ... Oh Richard Meade, 4th Earl of Clanwilliam, gotcha, thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 19/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dudley Anthony Hugo Ryder. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm bit of a mess. Inline Style is not right we don't use Hon. but we do use courtesy title. Infobox: you can't combine a courtesy style with a courtesy title like that its just rank+title never Hon+rank+title. A courtesy title isn't an office. The definite article is properly for substantive peers not courtesy titles. Peer is best used for substantive holders as courtesy title is just that. The Link falls a mile short of notability Garlicplanting (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Precedence or Creation.

We carefully order the peerages by precedence then by precedence within their peerage (England, Scotland etc) except in a number of infoboxes where we ignore this and just list by creation date ignoring precedence. This seems inconsistent Garlicplanting (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont

I started a draft for Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont at User:Ww2censor/Charles Coote. I don't have the peerage knowledge so perhaps someone who knows this could assist in expanding this aspect of his biography, either in prose or in appropriate succession boxes. Based on thepeerages entry] there may be more to add. Thanks in anticipation. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid thsat you are wating your time: the article already exists at Richard Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont. I fear your source has misspelt his surname, a common problem at that period. To check on this for peers, try searching the title, here Earl of Bellomont. There are not many articles missing on notable British peers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well this one is missing and you are pointing at the wrong guy who was born about 100 years earlier. See the last redlink on the Earl of Bellomont page. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd copy the sections relevent to the titles he inherited and those created upon him from the other articles to fill out the entry. You might look at Marquess_Wellesley for a similar example. Looks like careful note needs to be made that the patent appears to have a different spelling. I'm not clear when use changed if it did, certainly looking quickly all the UK government and official sources spelling the title with an a Garlicplanting (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is now in mainspace as Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont with help from User:Choess who provided an extensive sucession box, but the peerage infobox could do with some work by those who know better than I. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Peerage and Baronetage at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 07/07

Draft:Sir Richard Threston. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And now, a visit from Lord Melbury

Please chime in at the talk page for Kitchener of Khartoum. There's a question about Curzon, Irish hereditary peers being styled as lords, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

subcategories

I was reminded today of a past quarrel with another editor over whether to include an article in both Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Ireland and its subcategory Category:Extinct earldoms in the Peerage of Ireland. That prompted me to look up the policy on categories, which led me to the question: is on Extinct subcategory non-diffusing? —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)