Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Territorial designations 2 Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage 3 Thanks 4 Thanks 5 Campbell Baronets 6 Erskine Baronets 7 Lists by date and by alphabetical order 8 A Tad Confused... 9 Baird Baronets 10 WPBiography 11 Views sought on Double-Barrelled names 12 Too pernickety? 13 To do - next 14 Online Source 15 For discussion please 16 Re-do To Do 17 Dunbar Baronets 18 Project directory 19 Template:Bartcy status 20 Country Order 21 Rayment templates 22 Letters Patent 23 Please vote

[edit] Territorial designations

Resolved

I'm not sure it's an entry on the list but to the limited extent to which I have been involved in baronetcies I've run into frequent issues of establishing the TD which seems to be able to change (unlike a peerage) and that that change is by no means easy to follow or document. Alci12 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cracroft's lists all Baronetcies, both extant and extinct, along with their (presumably official) territorial designations. I wouldn't want to copy and paste any lists (as I'm sure that would breach copyright), but if there are any issues or ambiguities just ask me and I'll check them. I'm pretty sure changes aren't allowed (the TD of a Baronetcy is the place the grantee is stated to come from in the patent of creation, so I don't see how it'd change, anyway). Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What date is Cracroft? I agree re TDs not being changeable. But I think Rayment (wrongly) applies a later peerage TD to the earlier Baronetcy TD as if the later overwrites the earlier. - Kittybrewster 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The current release is February 2006. Proteus (Talk) 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage

Resolved

Sure, glad to help. (Shouldn't this be a sub-page somewhere at WikiProject Peerage instead of a new user page?) Anyway, the task list should, perhaps, include a check against a published source after checking against Rayment — I recently discovered that Hamilton Baronets, which I made up based on his page, omits Hamilton of Preston (created 1762 or 1763), one of whom is Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet. Choess 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I will add "to list the sources of info and check against them". I only have access to Debretts, Burkes and the SCB's official Roll. - Baronetcy project 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Resolved

I'd just like to say thanks to whoever (under pseudonym User:Baronetcy project) invited me to be part of this project, which I guess means someone has found my contributions to articles on the Peerage useful. I'm not sure I'll have so much time for Wikipedia in the future, but I'll certainly keep an eye on these pages and help out with things as I have done with the Peerage articles. JRawle (Talk) 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many thanks, anonymous friend!. Thesocialistesq 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Resolved

Thanks for inviting me to take part in this project! I will keep an eye on it, but I feel I haven’t got the time at the moment to take on a specific task (I found adding missing baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom rather exhausting!). Will instead be focusing on expanding various peerage pages, and will of course include information on the baronetcy if a baronet has been elevated to the peerage. Tryde 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could suggest an example page. What about Gough Baronets which could use some improvement? - Baronetcy project 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case such as Gough Baronets, the most reasonable thing in my opinion would be to keep the page very short and simply provide links to the relevant peerage pages. If there had been only one person with the surname Gough who had been created a baronet and then a peer, then Gough Baronets could automatically redirect to the peerage page in question (as for example Lopes Baronets redirects to Baron Roborough). Also, in the case of where a peerage has become extinct, but the baronetcy attached to it is still extant, then the peerage title should in my mind redirect to the page on the baronetcy (as for example Baron Holden redirects to Holden Baronets). This should then be in keeping with the practice on the peerage pages, where for instance Duke of Bolton redirects to Marquess of Winchester, as this title is still extant. I don’t know if there is an agreed policy on this, and hope someone else can give their opinion on these matters. Finally, regarding the request that I should take on the peers who are shown on Unproven baronetcies. Just to clarify things, does this mean that I should add information that the respective peer is not on the Official Roll of the Baronetage? If this is your intention, it shouldn’t be a problem. Tryde 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. But stating day and month as well as year of creation. Kittybrewster 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell Baronets

Volunteer wanted please. Kittybrewster 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is a muddle between campbell 1628 and campbell 1913 (both Ardnamurchan) - Kittybrewster 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation is extremely unclear. The first creation certainly seems to have become extinct on the death of the first holder, but the second creation was for someone called by a few sources "10th Baronet", and with an early date for precedence, so it makes me wonder if something odd was going on (such as a family claiming and using the original title and then being given a real one with the precedence they claimed or some such). A 1940s-ish copy of Burke's or Debrett's might help matters, but I don't have one, unfortunately. Proteus (Talk) 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked on this at some length in September. Thought I had explained, harmonized, and added sources. Does it need something further! Laura1822 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erskine Baronets

Resolved

Rayment says Erskine of Cambo (1st creation 1666) merged with the Earldom of Kellie and became extinct in 1829. So how did it happen that there was a second Erskine of Cambo creation in 1821? Did they really overlap? - Kittybrewster 12:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, but since the first baronetcy was superseded by the Kellie earldom, there would be no confusion between the two of them. This case aside, baronetcies are strictly by surname, unlike peerages, so it would be pretty harsh to say that there could only be one baronetcy per surname at any one time, even if they are from the same place or of the same family. I've never heard of any rule restricting creating new honors in one family. It seems to me that theoretically, every brother in one family could be created a baronet, even though more than one of them might be from the same place. Laura1822 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kb is talking about the td of the baronetcy being the same not just the surname ie two creations of 'smith of somewhere' not 'smith of somewhere' and 'smith of anywhere'. The duplication is somewhat common in those 'of the Navy' 'of the Army' creations for soldiers of the same name. Other than that two thoughts if the details are correct. If the baronetcy was known soon to be extinct (elderly unmarried holder etc) they may have felt free to create or it could just be carelessness with no one noticing the duplication. It's not unheard of for identical peerages to be created (though usually for the same person) the Earl of Mansfield had two creations with differing decents which meants there was both a 2nd earl and 2nd countess after his death! Alci12 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You've probably hit on the answer there — the only heirs to the first baronetcy at the time of the creation of the second one were about 75 and 70, so its extinction was imminent. Proteus (Talk) 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists by date and by alphabetical order

Resolved

Now that I've sorted the "List of Baronetcies in . . ." lists into alphabetical order, I've started looking at the precedence/date-ordered lists and they appear to be incomplete.

Brilliant - and so fast. Yes, they are.

Are the "List of" lists complete? I mean, is every baronet included in those lists? (Obviously the full dates and notes are incomplete.)

No they are not.

Let me make sure I understand. We do not have any complete lists? Laura1822

Correct (although B of NS, E, GB, UK and I now include all extant Baronetcies - not all of which are on List of ...). The best source of extinct ones seems to be Rayment - Kittybrewster 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are, I think it would be reasonably simple to take a copy of the "List of" lists and sort them by date and create complete lists for the "Baronetage of . . ." lists. Then we can continue to fill in the full dates, notes, etc.

But if we do that, it effectively means maintaining duplicate sets of data, which is a waste of our precious resources (Exhibit A: the incomplete "Baronetage of . . ." lists). It might be simpler to have one master list that we actually work from (perhaps located on a subpage of the project rather than in the main Wikipedia), which could then be copied and sorted as needed to create whatever category lists we think might be useful.

I think we need two lists, one alphabetical and complete (including extinct) namely List of..., the other (which we now have) in order of precedence not including extinct baronetcies.

Anyone know how to make bots? Can we borrow some? Laura1822 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Yes, they are on Wiki available to be downloaded. Search for Bot. - Kittybrewster 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Tad Confused...

I'd love to help, but I'm not clear on just what I'm supposed to be doing. When the project page says I should "upload" baronetcies, what does it mean? Should I add them to the lists? Should I create articles on them? On all the people who have held them? Thesocialistesq 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The first would be most immediately useful. Yes please. Articles are a bonus and may be for later. But I created pages for Smith and Brown and Clark (using Rayment) and it is not difficult. Thank you very much. Everything helps. Maybe we will all get a leaping lord or a whirling baronet barnstar. - Kittybrewster 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baird Baronets

Viscount Stonehaven entry looks wonky regarding the territorial designation of the Barony. I have added a query on the talk page. Ury or Urie? - Kittybrewster 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I can find both used. There are other problems on that article which I have added Alci12 09:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPBiography

I see that Campbell Baronets has been deemed by a robot to be within WikiProject Biography. I don't know what the biographers will do with it. - Kittybrewster 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views sought on Double-Barrelled names

Where a baronetcy is e.g. Price, now Rugge-Price, is the associated link to Price Baronets or Rugge-Price Baronets ? - Kittybrewster 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Debrett's et al. seem to use the last name in the list as the one under which they alphabetize, but the full name is always included in the title of the article. Is that what you're asking? Apropos of hyphenated names, my favorite pair are from the Regency era: "Golden Ball," whose name was something like Edward Hughes Ball Hughes; and the heiress Catherine Tylney-Long who married a Wellesley-Pole, after which the unhappy couple became Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley. (and the Tylney-Longs were baronets, making this On Topic!  :-) ) Laura1822 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So, for clarification, you propose listing under Rugge-Price Baronets, but within that artice, state "(originally Price)", and possibly a reference under Price Baronets pointing to the Rugge-Price Baronets article? - Kittybrewster 21:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I was nattering about before; Debrett's rule doesn't seem to apply here in Wiki-land. Make Price Baronets redirect to Rugge-Price Baronets. Laura1822 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In working with double-barrelled names in the relatively small Baronetage of Nova Scotia and List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, I discovered some inconsistencies in whether, to use the above example arbitrarily, Rugge-Price of Somewhere pointed to Rugge-Price Baronets or to Price Baronets. I found it both ways. And in alphabetizing, sometimes under Rugge and sometimes under Price.

To take a real example: "Purves, now Home-Purves-Hume-Campbell of Purves Hall" currently points to "Home Baronets" (there are a couple more with the name Home). According to the Debrett's Alphabetization Rule, it should point to "Campbell Baronets (there are several). I'm thinking that perhaps, since the name was originally Purves, it ought to point to "Purves Baronets." And of course we can always make a page called "Home-Purves-Hume-Campbell Baronets." Which should it be? I'm leaning towards the "original name" alphabetization option, but I'm wondering if and where we should have cross-references. My impulse would be to cross-reference every name in every table and on every "Baronets" page, e.g., put it with a link on the Home Baronets page, on the Purves Baronets page, on the Hume Baronets page, and on the Campbell Baronets page (regardless of where we ultimately decide to put it). At the moment of course many of these pages are not yet created, and I'm only concerned with getting them listed properly in the tables with the correct links and cross-references. Laura1822 13:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've talked myself into it. I'm going with the "slather it everywhere" approach for now-- feel free to discuss. I would appreciate further comment regarding where double-barrelled names should go in an alphabetized list. Laura1822 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Asumption is the source of many problems and I'd assumed they were listed by whatever the original creation used (where it later changed). Perhaps we could go with the SCB list as that might be as good a guidance on these tricky bts? Alci12 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to list under the name of the present baronet, e.g. Rugge-Price with a reference under Price (the original name) pointing to the new name. That way round if Price becomes Rugge-Price, one just moves the page or redirects. SCB lists them as Price, now Rugge-Price in the order of precedence and as Rugge-Price in their alphabetical list. - Kittybrewster 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too pernickety?

The 3rd Mander Baronet died in August. Is it too pernickety to put the (potential) 4th Baronet down as probably ? To date, SCB's website has not been brought up to date with the death, let alone the successor. Wiki in front, yet again, maybe. I suspect User:Handsaw is the heir incumbent. - Kittybrewster 23:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question, and here's my tuppence worth, for discussion. The whole "unproven" concept makes me a little uncomfortable - and I do understand about formal legal requirements! It seems to me to be pernickity on the part of the SCB to label everyone who hasn't filled out their paperwork as "unproven." I understand that the point is to avoid cases like Baronet of Campbell of Ardnamurchan, but in a case where there is no digging around the family tree, just a straightforward father to son descent, or even uncle to nephew, it does seem pedantic to me to say that the heretofore acknowledged heir apparent has only probably acceded. My understanding of peerage law is that the peerage descends according to the terms of its creation, and no one can do anything to alter it (with a few esoteric exceptions I won't go into here); indeed until the 1964(? if memory serves) Act, a peer couldn't even disclaim. In other words, he was the peer even if he followed none of the usual formalities, or refused to acknowledge his inheritance. Are not baronetcies the same? The issue in Baronet of Campbell of Ardnamurchan after all wasn't whether the 8th baronet was a baronet, rather whether it was provable on paper since none of the intervening baronets since the first one had done so to the SCB. The SCB (if the law is the same as for peers) could not (and did not attempt to) "uncreate" the baronetcy (there being no question of treason and attainder); if indeed it still existed, no one could alter it. All the SCB could really do was declare agnosticity. Right? (a) is my understanding of peerage law correct, and (b) is the law regarding baronetcies equivalent? Laura1822 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the same because of the requirements laid down by the Royal Warrant as shown on the SCB website. That warrant was requested by the Baronets in order to stop pretenders devaluing the currency. In c.1996 I was told about a woman who had been seen at dances in London, claiming to be a Baronetess (which was undoubtedly false). If the Sovereign is the root of all honour, the Sovereign must have the concommitant power to subject succession to restrictions. SCB only came into existence in 1910 so it was not open to previous baronets to prove their succession - merely to later ones to show sufficient evidence of their claim. Pursuing the thought, it occurs to me that membership of SCB is restricted to Baronets and their heirs apparent, so, in the case of those whose heir has joined SCB, it could be argued that the Registrar of SCB has acknowledged the succession prior to the death of the incumbent. - Kittybrewster 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the SCB's on rather shaky logical footing here. They claim that it "is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder", and then justify this by quoting the Royal Warrant saying "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document". That simply doesn't say what they're claiming it says. Preventing Baronets from being recognised as such at Court and on legal documents unless they've proved their claim to the title is enormously different from saying they don't actually succeed until they have proved their succession. Furthermore, Wikipedia's not an official document, military Commission, etc., so they're nothing in that citation stopping us from calling people Baronets when it's obvious they are. And we do seem to be going against the grain — sources like Burke's and Cracroft's have no problem calling Peers with Baronetcies Baronets, yet hardly any of them have proved it to the SCB. (And, under the Royal Warrant, it would seem they don't really have to: they would have no need to be received as a Baronet or styled as such in an official document because they will always be received and styled as a Peer instead.) Proteus (Talk) 11:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think a certain amount of common sense may be needed here. E.g. I'm perfectly happy to add the eldest son etc as baronet (where the usual sources agree they were heir) before they have proved their succession as long as we note they haven't been entered on the roll. Where the succession is to the 27th cousin 9 times removed I'd rather we put something like 'the probable holder/claimant is x but no claim as been made out' Alci12 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That would seem sensible. It is, after all, what we do with Peers (everyone is pretty sure Viscount Mountgarret is Earl of Ormonde and Ossory but it's not completely clear yet so we don't call him it). Proteus (Talk) 10:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, though in that case as with several others I suspect the financial cost of trying to prove the claim with mean it will never be made Alci12 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do - next

I think the next thing to do is to copy Baronetage of (each) and then sort them into alphabetical and put them into List of (each). .... Laura would do that well.

THEN go through Rayment and check that each baronetcy is shown on List of (each) and, if appropriate, on Baronetage of (each).

Unless anyone has ideas for better prioritising..?

More hands needed on deck. - Kittybrewster 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand. You want to replace our current "List of" lists with alphabetically sorted copies of the current "Baronetage of" lists? That won't be quite so simple as it was before, because I'll have to move or remove the precedence numbers so that it will sort on the name, and I'm not sure there's an automated way to do that. But if that's what you want, I'll play with it and see what I can come up with. Sorry for my absence lately, been ill again/still. Laura1822 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We dont need the precedence numbers in the alphabetical lists. And the existing List of (each) (properly) include some baronetcies that are not shown on Baronetage of (each), namely the extinct baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Source

Just ran across a source online with which I was previously unacquainted. Debrett's 1828 Extant Baronetage of England appears to be a transcription of some of the Baronetage of England published by Debrett in 1828. I added it to the list of sources on the project page. For the record, I own a copy of Debrett's Peerage pubished in 1828, which is a genealogical peerage (ditto Debrett 1812). Wish I had the time and energy to transcribe it and put it online! Laura1822 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done - Kittybrewster 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For discussion please

As things are (or are intended to be) we are aiming for this:

Table	Baronetage of (each)	List of (each)
Sorted by	Date	Alphabetical
Nova Scotia	Extant	Extinct & extant
England	Extant	Extinct & extant
Ireland	Extant	Extinct & extant
Great Britain	Extant	Extinct & extant
United Kingdom	Extant	Extinct & extant A huge list subdivided into each initial letter

1. Is this really the best way to list them?
2. Should the complete lists (extinct and extant) be bundled together in one massive list, regardless of the type of baronetcy, but subdivided by letter of the alphabet and stating which type of baronetcy?

In my opinion that might be more useful - and it more closely reflects Raymond's page. My thinking is that most enquirers don't know or care whether a baronetcy is extant or not, or whether it is GB, UK or whatever. They just know they want to look up Sir John Bloggins and won't know how or where to begin. - Kittybrewster 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that one complete combined list (divided alphabetically, as you say) might be the most useful organizational scheme. But I seem to recall somewhere that Wikipedia frowns on constructing massive lists? Laura1822 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. The way to do it is as in e.g. List_of_craters_on_the_Moon and the sub-sets of that. - Kittybrewster

In thinking about this, I am loathe to toss all our hard work on the extant lists. Perhaps it would be useful if we renamed them something like [[List of Extant Baronetcies in order of precedence]]. I was more than a bit confused about the difference between the two sets of lists when I first encountered this project, and a more descriptive title would help. Then rename the second set (currently List of baronetcies) [[List of all baronetcies in alphabetical order]]. Most importantly, make this latter, complete list (divided alphabetically onto separate pages), the primary focus, the page to which references elsewhere in Wikipedia point. And then include a link on that page to the Extant List by precedence-- or possibly to a new Complete List by Precedence (which would be a copy of the Complete List, sorted by precedence)? Ultimately, there is value to a list by precedence. Okay, I'm starting to contradict myself now so I'll stop. Please, other Team Baronetcy members, give us your opinions on overall organization. Laura1822 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't thinking of abandoning the extant lists (which are undoubtedly of value), nor of including the extinct baronetcies on the list by order of precedence. But your proposal is that Extant baronetcies also be merged into one list, not being subdivided into "kind" but having an extra column containing NS, E, I, GB or UK. Sounds good to me. - Kittybrewster 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NS etc in a column. Laura1822

So the format we are aiming for now is this:

Table	List of extant baronetcies	List of all baronetcies
Sorted by	Date	Alphabetical
All	List of extant baronetcies subdivided into 25 year blocks	Extinct & extant A huge list subdivided into each initial letter

Only a little notice: the more new lists (or parts), the more confused the whole gets, I think. Greetings Phoe 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am hoping all extant will all be on one page - subdivided purely for ease of editing. I am thinking UK, GB, etc are not useful subdivisions. The question is, do we have a consensus for this change? Do folks think it is, on balance, a change for the better? And where do we insert the additional column? - Kittybrewster 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we breaking consistency with the peerages format though. ie List_of_hereditary_baronies_in_the_peerages_of_the_British_Isles which is by date for extant/abeyant/extinct combined list Alci12 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we would be. I think our goal should be to do things in the most useful way. It seems to me that the extant ones should be merged onto the one page (UK) in date order and then renamed List of extant baronetcies. That will give rise to the question as to when a baronetcy is no longer eligible for the extant list and moves to the extinct list. - Kittybrewster 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps proteus can tell us if that's going to cause a problem as I thought wiki good practice is to try to keep coherancy across the whole even where it isn't best for an individual article(s). I don't have a huge problem but with what's your suggesting but I'd hate for peoples huge efforts to be undone if this causes general problems. Alci12 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have thought further on the objectives (usefulness) and the objections (which are based on “Wiki should be standardised”). Both the objectives and the objections are achieved by merging Baronetage of (each kind) within one page, as is the case with the various Baronies.

1. I propose to do this, merging (each) into a new page List of extant Baronetcies but “each kind” will retain its own table within that page. The baronetcies will remain sorted by precedence (date) within kind.
2. Baronetcies of the UK will be further divided into 25-year periods, as at present, for continued ease of editing.
3. I propose that Baronetage of (each kind) loses its table and redirects to List of extant Baronetcies.
4. Please note (a) the word “all” does not occur before “extant” beause it is implied <<comment: it is also implied in various incomplete lists>>, (b) lower case “e” in “extant”, (c) the departure towards the word “Baronetcies” and (d) capital “B” in Baronetcies.

Please feel free to comment on these proposals.

It may be that the same exercise should be carried out on List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of (each), but that is a separate question. - Kittybrewster 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The formats we are aiming for now are as shown here:

Table	Project	List of extant baronies/ baronetcies	List of all baronies/ baronetcies
Baronies	Peerage	List of extant baronies sorted by date and thus subdivided into kind	List of Baronies of England; Lordships of Parliament; Baronies of GB; Baronies of Ireland; and Baronies of UK
Baronetcies	Baronetcies	List of extant baronetcies subdivided into kind, then sorted by date	List of all English, Nova Scotia, Irish and GB baronetcies, in alphabetical order List of all UK baronetcies, subdivided into each initial letter

I would support that. It follows a well-established precedent and it aids navigation. The only problem I can think of is that it will create yet more work for us, but that is what we're here for. As to the argument from gratuitous length, consider Wikipedia's gargantuan full list of Latin phrases, which has gained acceptance by the community. Thesocialistesq 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Project Peerage has just decided to divide their List of hereditary baronies into English, Scottish, etc. The link in the table above now redirects. Laura1822 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-do To Do

I have re-done the To Do section on the project page to reflect the above. I then re-ordered the sections on the project page to follow the order in which we are doing the tasks.

I'm still a little unclear on the status of the intended-to-be-Complete lists. Are they finished up to the Rayment comparison task, or am I supposed to re-create them by sorting the finished extant lists alphabetically? (If the latter, I need to wait until we've finished adding the full dates to the extant UK list, and then I will have to compare each newly-created list to the current list to make sure I don't lose any work anyone's done on them in the meantime. But I could get started on the first four.) Laura1822 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My confusion has been alleviated and I have revised the project page accordingly. We are almost finished with the tasks leading up to the enormous Rayment comparison. Laura1822

All extant baronetcies now have full dates, so Rayment/Abdy can now be done. - Kittybrewster 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunbar Baronets

Resolved

On the page for Dunbar Baronets, the text says that the Dunbars of Mockrum, Durn, and Hempriggs are in the Baronetage of England, and only Dunbar of Northfield is in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, and Dunbar of Boath in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. However, in the List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, all of the first four -- Durn, Hempriggs, Mockrum, and Northfield -- are listed. Also Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon. I don't see them on the extant Baronetage of England that we have now. Where do they really belong? Laura1822 13:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mockrum, Durn, Hempriggs, Northfield and Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon are all NS. Boath is UK. I have fixed them. - Kittybrewster 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! I like your new "resolved" template. I was just wishing for something like it this morning. Laura1822

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bartcy status

It is done, thanks to User:Ais523. Examples of its use follow:

Dormant. 9th Bt died 1999.

Extinct. 9th Bt died 1999.

Extant.

Unproven. 9th Bt died 2005.

Unproven, under review. 9th Bt died 2005.

Dormant, under review. 9th Bt died 1999.

Proven but merged with Baron Whatnot.

Unproven. Merged with Baron Whatnot. 9th Bt died 1999.

Dormant and merged with Baron Whatnot. 9th Bt died 1999.

Under review. Merged with Baron Whatnot.

Proven but not used.

Forfeit.

[edit] Country Order

I was adding some s-boxes and went to look for the next holder and it wasn't where I expected. Ie List_of_extant_Baronetcies has the baronetcy of Scotland (which only started 14 years after Englands sorted ahead, so in the case in question I found the oldest extant baronet well down the list. This doesn't make sense to me is there a reason. Depending on method you use it would be E/I/S/GB/UK or E/S/I/GB/UK Alci12 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True. I have thought about this and didn't move E above S because I felt other things were greater priority - and I like the intro to NS. By all means change it around. - Kittybrewster 18:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it - at least E/S. Alci12 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking of which, should there be a section somewhere dealing with S as opposed to NS? - Kittybrewster 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd always assumed they were indivisible? Unless anyone knows otherwise. Alci12 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rayment templates

There are now three Rayment templates. Rayment for Peerage, Rayment-b for Baronetage and Rayment-bd for Baronetage where the dates of the Baronets have not been copied across from Rayment-b. A job that has arisen as a result is the changing of Rayment to Rayment-b or Rayment-bd (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rayment. - Kittybrewster 13:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letters Patent

I was finding the LP for some other articles and came across those for baronets. I don't have a strong feeling on this but perhaps it might be a link on or a quote contained in the baronet article [1] Alci12 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

• Talk:Francis_Burdett,_5th_Baronet - Kittybrewster 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)